User:Leanna321/Rumination (psychology)/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?

Leanna321

Link to draft you're reviewing User:Leanna321/Rumination (psychology)
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
Rumination (psychology)

Evaluate the drafted changes

Overall, great work on this article draft so far! You have organized it well and have some great information that helps increase the understanding of what "rumination" is. I love the inclusion of a "treatment" section as it allows "rumination" to be seen as something that can be mediated. Thus, the addition of this section more wholesomely captures the subject. One suggestion that I can make is to ensure you are not trying to argue for rumination (i.e., that your sentences do not sound biased). While the information from the research studies is needed and valuable, the language used in describing these sounds as though it is biased toward rumination rather than an informative article. The one section that really sounded bias to me is the "pathology" one. I would consider keeping the research information in there but rewording it so that it sounds more neutral. Overall, there is great information here that just needs some rewording to sound less bias. Additionally, there are several places within the "Worry" section that have in-text citations rather than Wikipedia citations. I am unsure if this is something in the original article or if you did this for your personal thought processes. If you intend to use these cites, I would be sure to edit the references to ensure they are embedded within Wikipedia rather than cited APA style within the paragraph. Also, I would make sure when you are formatting and making new sections to ensure you are using the "Header" function on Wikipedia rather than the "sub-header" one or bolding the term. Lastly, I think you could consider including a section that discusses the "signs" of rumination to more completely develop the article. I think the addition of this could help explain what rumination is in more depth. In general, it is obvious you have put some hard work into this so far. I think you are well on your way to creating a great final article.