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

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

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 has been considerably expanded and reads well

- Introductory sentence clearly describes the theme

- Overly detailed and summarizes most of the sections that are included

- Some information seems to missing references, if it isn't common knowledge I would probably add one in there

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?

- All content is relevant and seems to be recent

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?

- Content is all neutral and gaps in knowledge concerning this behaviour is stated

- Not persuasive or biased in any particular way

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?
• Check a few links. Do they work?

- Most of the new content is backed up by a reliable source, however there is some information in the introductory without it

- Only six references used, I'm not sure about the extent of information on this topic but maybe consider adding one or two instead of taking the info from the same sources

- Links work, I'm assuming they're not organized correctly because its a draft that is being worked on and not the final one

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?

- Content is clear and the writing reads well

- There are a few spelling errors but overall the grammar is correct and consistent

- I think adding nature v nurture to the development section is a good idea

- Adding subsections to motivational basis similarly to how it looks in methods of control could also be beneficial

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?

- N/A

- I would suggest moving the picture in the current article

If the draft you're reviewing is 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?

- N/A

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 I think you have added a lot of information and have really improved the article

- Clearly you have done your research and what you have added looks good

- I think adding a few more things and figuring out the best way to organize it will really benefit the final article