User talk:Pws97
A brownie for you!
|
Wassup Bostonian49 (talk) 19:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC) |
Welcome!
Hello, Pws97, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Ian and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.
I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.
Handouts
|
|---|
Additional Resources
|
|
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 23:04, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi there, You are in my peer review group. Would you like to peer review my page and I'll peer review yours? Leave me a reply or a note on my talk page. Also just let me know briefly what you did (is it a new page, did you edit certain sections, add citations, etc.). Mine is a new article that I wrote about Hope Spots. Hopefully something works out! Cheers! TealPenguinFoot (talk) 18:41, 11 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TealPenguinFoot (talk • contribs) 18:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Peer Review of Eclectic psychotherapy
This new article on eclectic psychotherapy provides a background into what it is and then a description of its different types. It is a very well structured article with relevant headers. I was going to suggest adding a photo, but it appears that other psychology articles don’t do this so I think it was a good choice to leave one out. My main suggestion would be to reread the entire article out loud and ask, “does this sound like an encyclopedia?” Especially in the section “Background,” there are a lot of places where the language does not suit WP. For example, “throughout the history of psychology, many distinct approaches for therapy have been created and used.” This is a very broad statement; the kind you would find in a report. I think it can be cut or edited to add detail. Another example comes in the “Comparison to Integrative Psychology” section: “Although there are similarities between the two, there are also key differences.” I think this sentence can be cut altogether. Words and phrases like “although,” “additionally,” and “as the name suggests” are also not suited to WP. Additionally, I found a couple spelling errors like “dilema” rather than “dilemma” and “consider” rather than “considered” so check the spelling before moving the article to the main space.
The references for this article are for the most part good quality, but some are primary research and should be replaced. For example, this study “Brief eclectic psychotherapy v. eye movement desensitization and reprocessing therapy for post-traumatic stress disorder: randomized controlled trial” (#5 in the references list).
Overall, a quality article that adds useful information to WP, but needs some brushing up in terms of the language and sentence structure before it can be moved out of the sandbox. TealPenguinFoot (talk) 16:38, 16 April 2017 (UTC)