Peer Review

Review #1

Two Successes:

● Using data and statistics in order to back your claims made them
stronger overall. The numbers and statistics are stated in ways that are
easy to follow by the reader as well.
● You introduced both arguments for your side and arguments against
counter arguments throughout your paper. I think that everything you
brought to the table is relevant and valid. You also used the numbers
and data in order to support your claims which worked well. I think that
you have presented a strong argument through all of your claims and
have defended it well by using data and counterarguments. Your
sources and quotes also strengthen your overall argument. Everything
within your paper stays on topic.

Two Challenges:

● Revise your sentence structure with a close eye. A lot of your sentences
have good information in them but the structure makes it confusing and
hard to digest. The sentence “Although Carlson...from doctors” is an
example of this. I would revise it in a way that combines the two as it
does not sound good structurally. Ex. While Carlson and many other
political commentators are on the forefront of the spread of
misinformation, covid vaccine misinformation is spread from doctors as
well. I found some of your structure choices to not make sense for be
confusing and if you were to just switch up the phrasing the information
included in the sentences would make much more sense.
● While you have presented a lot of evidence that supports a particular
argument, you have not actually argued much for this argument. There
is a numerous amount of statistics, numbers, evidence, and
explanations but there is no connecting factor that pulls the reader to a
certain conclusion. While reading this I can draw a conclusion to what
you are arguing based off of the information provided but you are not
directly stating much other than that information provided. Should we
be vaccinated or should we not? I can make my guess but for this
editorial you should be pushing me towards your side. Make sure to
draw all of your information to a certain conclusion.
Review #2

Two Successes:

1. You present good examples and good statistics. The examples have the opportunity to
strengthen your argument because they can be easily connected to why more people
should seek out help. With proper connection to the importance of psychotherapy your
paper would become solid.

2. Throughout your paper you show that you know what you are talking about and it
makes the believability of your paper greater. You are able to present the information in
a way that seems natural and easy to read which is good.

Two Challenges:

1. Make sure that you are citing your sources as well as your figures. Citations are
missing from all quotations and graphs.

2. Make sure that you are staying on the topic of the paper. While the example about
suicide provided is a good way to lead into the importance of psychotherapy, make sure
that you are keeping with the topic of psychotherapy. Before reaching the explanation
and connection to psychotherapy it felt as though the topic had shifted. You also should
focus less on the reasons why people don't seek help and instead focus on the benefits
that come from receiving help. Your paper seems to be more about why people don't
seek out help rather than the importance of help and what it can do for people.

Review #3

Two Successes:

● The layout of this paper is very nice on the eyes and very easy to read. The
inclusion of the quotes and pictures is done very smoothly. Overall great
formatting.
● The organization and flow of topics in this paragraph is very good. The topics
discussed all fit the main theme and could be used to show why more funding
is needed.

Two Challenges:

● Make sure that in your example paragraphs you are explaining how more
funding would help with these problems. There is a lack of connection to the
 main argument in all of your body paragraphs. Try and connect all of these
examples to your main claim. How would this help, why do we need it, etc.
● I can see the direction you are trying to go in and I think that if you developed
your paragraphs and ideas more this editorial could be very good. Your last
three body paragraphs are very lacking in general and the ideas presented are
just there. Very brief and does not go deeper than the surface level. You are
simply just saying bad things have happened and that it is another reason we
need more funding. Go deeper under the surface and connect it to the final
claim.