User:BrownBoy1999/Psychogenic pain/Kassafrass Peer Review

General info
BrownBoy1999 (Diego)
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:BrownBoy1999/Psychogenic pain
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Psychogenic pain

Evaluate the drafted changes
Content:


 * So far, the content added is relevant to the topic of psychogenic pain!
 * The content looks to be up-to-date. There are only two references so far, so continue to include recent references with as much up-to-date information as possible!

Tone and Balance:


 * Most of the content added so far is neutral. The first edit made (i.e., "Individuals who report symptoms of psychogenic pain are...") has a bit of a not-so-neutral tone to it and make it sound as though every individual shares the same negative viewpoint of individuals reporting psychogenic pain and it also comes across that you share that same negative viewpoint. Try to make this point as neutral as possible and possibly explain why this population is stigmatized for it. What has happened in the past for them to be stigmatized to this degree? That can help give a background for it!

Sources and References:


 * Not many sources and references have been added so far, but make sure you are embedding the citations into the text after the sentence (e.g., [3]). You can do this by clicking at the end of your sentence and choosing "Cite" at the top of the page.
 * Make sure to cite this sentence: "While the intent was to create a more encompassing diagnosis, there are those who argue that this diagnosis could serve as a way to misdiagnose an unknown medical condition as a mental disorder." Where did you get this information? Who are "those who argue?"
 * The reference Winfried & Frederick, 2013 needs some sort of link to the original source. That way other people can read the article for themselves if they wish.

Organization:


 * I think the organization so far is great! I like how you are separating each bit of information into its own paragraph - it makes the information easy to read and understand!

Wrap-Up:


 * Overall, I think the information added has been good so far! I would be interested to see if you are able to add any more information to the "Treatment" section in the original article!