User:Smithme2/Internet addiction disorder/Lillysparks2 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?

Smithme2

Link to draft you're reviewing: Internet addiction disorder
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Cognitive-behavioral model of pathological Internet use [revised]

[edit] This model defines IAD as pathological Internet use (PIU). In 2001, the cognitive-behavioral model for excessive use of the Internet was created. This model proposed that already existing psychosocial problems (e.g., depression, anxiety, substance abuse) were more likely to lead to the development of excessive and maladaptive behaviors related to the Internet. Importantly, Davis categorized problematic behaviors on the Internet into two categories: specific pathological Internet use (SPIU) and generalized pathological Internet use (GPIU). SPIU behaviors include frequently accessing things such as pornography or other sexually explicit material, stock trading, and online gambling. GPIU behaviors simply include fixating on the Internet itself, rather than particular materials that are accessed through the Internet. Additionally, people engaged in GPIU behaviors are drawn by the different forms of communication that the Internet allows them to engage in. In general, the Internet would lead to maladaptive cognitions, and predisposed vulnerability could reinforce this relationship.

Moreover, the higher the individual's level of adaptation to undesirable behavior, the more likely pathological Internet use is to occur, which also means a higher level of addiction to the Internet.

Evaluate the drafted changes

After reading through the article, the contributions of my peer seem to be relevant and appropriate. I do think the article would benefit if this information was briefly mentioned throughout the lead section. I think that the information adds a lot of depth into the mental health consequences of internet use disorder. I think that more information into SPIU and GPIU behaviors would add and interesting section to the article and provide more appropriate information into the consequences of internet use disorder. The tone of you contribution seems to remain neutral/unbiased and flows well with the rest of the article. Your chosen sources also seem to be appropriate. Overall, I think you did very well on your article contribution.