User:Rfr5240/Virtual reality therapy/Arcpkl Peer Review

Peer review

This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

• Whose work are you reviewing? Rfr5240
• Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Rfr5240/sandbox

---

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?

Lead evaluation

• Edits have not necessitated an update to the Lead.
• The Lead has an introductory sentence, but does not describe all of the major sections (seems to stop before Section 5).
• It is concise but could be expanded more.

---

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?

Content evaluation

• Edits have been focused around grammar changes, and have not changed the article's content.

---

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?

Tone and balance evaluation

• The article seems to be neutral and balanced.

---

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
• 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?
• Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation

• The Talk page for the article already contains comments about out-of-date sources.
• Many sources are also tagged for re-evaluation.

---

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?

Organization evaluation

• Edits are on individual sentences from various places in the article.

---

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?

Overall evaluation

• Edits made so far have been to grammar for smoother reading.
• One edit ("Unlike traditional cognitive...") may need to be changed back; the original comma helps separate a more in depth description from the rest of the sentence.