User talk:11m30m1994/sandbox
Peer Review (P3) – Madison (llm30m1994) Photopsychology
1. Lead Section
- The introductory sentence states the article topic accurately, but could be done so more concisely by removing “a specialty within psychology,” as that is made clear by the subsequent definition given.
- This section summarizes all major points in the article, including the history or timeline of its development, and the various forms of photography in psychotherapy, and all of the information in this section is also present in the body of the article. However, adding an additional sentence or two in the second paragraph to indicate that the different types of photography listed are often used for/ with psychotherapy would be helpful, as its role as a treatment technique/ component is not entirely clear.
- Lastly, I am a little unclear as to exactly what is meant by the term “points of contact,” which is also used in the Timeline section.
2. Article
- The sections are clearly organized with headings and subheadings that are appropriate, and links to relevant articles/ information are present throughout. There doesn’t seem to be any favoring of one side/ unbalanced coverage, although some sections are longer than others. The Patient Portraits subsection is the longest and most thorough, giving a really clear explanation of the purpose and benefits of patient portraits. The use of a picture of a Surrey County Asylum patient is also a great addition and further demonstrates the author’s points.
- The Photoanalysis section under Personal Photographs could benefit from a little more of a detailed explanation, as I’m still a little unclear what it exactly means and how photoanalysis would be used.
- The tone used in the Phototherapy vs. Therapeutic Photography subsection is a little more informal/ familiar than the tone in the rest of the article. Also, the sentence about therapeutic photography – I think this is referring to recreational photography that can also serve a therapeutic purpose/ benefit, but that isn’t entirely clear and I’m not sure if that is an accurate understanding or not. An additional sentence or two explaining how photography has the potential to do all of the things listed would be helpful in clarifying this information.
- Under the Reading Pictures subsection, there are lots of names/ abbreviations – maybe italisizing some of these or making them bold would help them to stand out and make the information seem more accessible (I’m not sure if this is something you do on wikipeida or not though, based on their style/ preferences). Also, the last point (#6 – Genre and Skill Level) – making the numbers beneath GSL into letters or some other form of bulleting would make this a little easier to understand.
3. References
- There are not a significant number of references given the length of the article, which the author said was something she was struggling with, as there were not many sources on the topic. However, the references that are included seem appropriate, statements are associated with supporting references, and references appear to be relatively complete.
5. New Article
- The coverage is comprehensive and the sections are all relevant and logical. The link to further reading at the bottom is useful as well.
- I wish there was a little more information included about the Rorschach test; however, I realize this is somewhat separate from the topic at hand because it is not directly related to photography.
P3 Review
editMadison,
Great start overall with great sources. Interesting topic, I have never heard of this before!
Photopsychology: This section is does not need to be edited because it is a good description of what exactly you are talking about.
Timeline: What is happening in this field currently? It may not be necessary to put in the timeline, but possibly a description after?
Patient Portraits: remove, "only a couple of decades after photography began. It seems more like a filler then anything. Better to say, "In 1856, Hugh W. Diamond..." Remove "In addition to helping diagnose and treat his patients".
Personal Photographs: Good section, describes what it is along with where it is currently being used.
Ambiguous Photographs: Would be nice to see what an example of one of these photographs is!
Photographs' Photographs: Not sure if this title is the best, maybe "The 6 Photographic Mindsets". This is all described very well with good references. What is the difference between Free Association and Thematic Analysis?
Overall this is very good, with much more information that I thought could ever be on this subject. References are good, but maybe clean up on unnecessary words.
Editor: KAMJ2018 — Preceding unsigned comment added by KAMJ2018 (talk • contribs) 20:17, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Response Letter
editThe only peer review that I had available for the second draft was from Cedwgd1212 (Rachel). In response to her peer review, I added to photoanalysis, left out therapeutic photography, because I didn't feel like it fit in the topic as well and under reading pictures I made a more defined numerical and bullet pointed list that was condensed down for clarity. For references I added in more than 2x the number of sources, and they were more appropriately secondary sources.
As for KAMJ2018, Kyle's peer review, I didn't have this in time for making edits, but I like his suggestion for talking about the field and where it is currently today in the timeline section. I couldn't get a non-copyrighted Walker Visual - maybe someone else can access one or get permission for one. I know they are shown in many of the references I used in that section. I agree, I didn't particularly like the Photographers' photographs, but I was trying to distinguish this category of photographs had to be made by the person undergoing therapy, whereas the rest of the photographs in therapy do not have to be made by the person in therapy, although sometimes they are, it was more about what the content brings out now than about projected emotion that went into the making of the photograph