User:Psychologylearner1/Ecopsychology/Sarahamc0714 Peer Review

Peer review

Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects:

Lead

Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic?
Is the content added up-to-date?
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral?
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
Are the sources current?
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
Are images well-captioned?
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

For New Articles Only

If the draft you're reviewing is for a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.

Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
What are the strengths of the content added?
How can the content added be improved?

Examples of good feedback

A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.

Peer review of "Homemaking"
Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Additional Resources

Check out the Editing Wikipedia PDF for general editing tips and suggestions.

General info

Whose work are you reviewing?

Psychologylearner1

Link to draft you're reviewing
User:Psychologylearner1/Ecopsychology
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
Ecopsychology

Evaluate the drafted changes

I like the "Cultural Concepts and Ecopsychology" section presented. It definitely aligns with the mission to fill any gaps regarding underrepresented populations and helps further explain the history of this psychology subfield. One suggestion I can make is that this new section be placed as a sub-header under the "history" section. Also, your information regarding "Traditional Ecological Knowledge" is very powerful. I would, however, suggest clarifying the language when speaking about this as it is slightly confusing to read. Specifically, consider clarifying what it means regarding the "symbiotic" relationship that indigenous populations believe should be prevalent between humans and nature. In regard to other potential information to add to this article, I would suggest considering adding one discussing the professions (if any) are available within Ecopsychology. Additionally, I would suggest you ensure that major sections covered are briefly discussed in the lead section so any reader knows what to expect. Regarding citations, I think you could consider updating a few from the original article to provide more contemporary and accurate information. The ones you currently have listed in your sandbox draft are incredibly recent, so I think the addition of other recent, reliable sources would greatly benefit your article edits. Lastly, there are a few places that are difficult to understand due to long sentence structure. I would suggest ensuring you proof read for any grammatical errors and conciseness. I find that individuals get much more out of readings that incorporate shorter sentences with easier language. Overall, the section on your sandbox so far is very informative and seems to be incredibly relevant in educating individuals on this subject.

campbell: I also like how you talk about the cultural history of this topic. I think it would be great if you added a little bit more information about how indigenous communities use Ecopsychology in their everyday lives. Like mention the practical use. I read through the original article and I would definitely recommend adding to the lead. That could definitely be phrased better so I think you could help a lot with that!