User talk:AcevedoBarga/sandbox

Peer Review

Hi AcevedoBarga! Here are a few points that I think might help you improve and some sections which I see good progress in.

Major Points

• Looking through the content you have added to the MBSR article, it is very educational and has a very encyclopedic/Wikipedian tone.
• In my opinion, dividing the overview into an overview section and a history section might be more organized. This will eliminate the narrative tone caused by shifting between history and description of MBSR.
• Also, since the two articles have links to each other, it would be nice if they have a parallel layout and possibly similar section titles. You can simply have the first few sections with similar titles then branch out into more specific sections that relate to each individual article. This will allow an interested reader to compare across articles and easily identify their differences and similarities.

Minor Points

• In terms of references, I’m assuming the parentheses are your sources. If so, these need to be adjusted into Wikipedia’s referencing format.
• I also noticed in your outline that you plan to include “critique of MBCT as pseudoscience”. I would like to simply remind you to avoid leaning towards certain views so that your article remains unbiased.

That’s all the comments I have for now! Looking forward to reviewing your progress! Please let me know if anything I have mentioned is unclear. Karmastaji (talk) 02:53, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review #1 - Zack

Major Points -

• You've already been able to add a lot of information to MBSR which is great, but the MBCT article needs a bit more attention, which I'm sure that you're aware of.
• "Implications on the brain" section seems like a great and appropriate addition. Needs a bit more information and proper formatting to be considered complete.
• It is unclear if you'll be linking these two articles, or simply editing them separately. Right now, they run into each other on the page.

Minor Points -

• Formatting was a little bit all over the place and difficult to read in some places. I'm not sure if it is Wikipedia ready in this sense.
• References especially were out of whack

These topics are very interesting and I look forward to seeing them once they are a little bit cleaner and easy to follow!

ZackNU (talk) 03:59, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review 2

Hello! Here are a few additional points since the last review :)

• I can already see an improvement in tone due to separating the overview and the history. Your outline indicates that you plan to do the same with the MBCT article. Once that is done, the article formats will be more parallel, enabling comparisons across the two articles.
• I think the Implications on the Brain section is a very good addition to the articles. So far, the section in the MBSR article is short. If you plan on expanding further, it will stand strong on its own. However, if you don't have any additional content to add, you can consider adding it as a subheading to Evaluation of Effectiveness.

I hope these brief points are helpful! Please reach out if you would like me to look at it again once you've updated the MBCT article :) Karmastaji (talk) 02:41, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review #2 - Zack

Major Points -

• I think that your goals are good and including charts or pictures would do a lot to help make the articles easier to read.
• You've done a great job of getting your hands dirty and delving deep into the articles in many sections, but I still see a need for improvements in MBSR Extent of Practice and MBCT background and applications.
• The opening section for MBCT is too long and should be broken up into different pieces. You have a lot of great information there, but not all of it should be introduction.

Minor Points -

• There is still some odd formatting on the second page's table of contents. It may not be showing up for you, but on my screen it isn't properly set up.
• It is unclear to me whether or not you are combining these articles or keeping them separate based on the formatting.
• The citations don't seem to show up in the references for some reason, but again I'm not sure if this is just my problem or not.
• The external links don't have any links attached to them.
• In the introductory section, you use brackets to clarify what you meant by "It." I would just remove the brackets and "It" and use the name.

There is a lot here and I commend you for getting into such an interesting and complex topic! I think you've done a great job so far of putting your mark on the articles and I look forward to seeing the finished products!

ZackNU (talk) 04:12, 5 April 2016 (UTC)