User:CM.PSY479/Panic/Mercadora Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

CM.PSY479/Panic


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:CM.PSY479/Panic?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Panic

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead:

In the lead of the original article it does seem to have a nice introduction. I would thing maybe adding something about how panic can also be a psychological disorder and that it is classified in the DSM 5 as such.

Content:

I think there are some opportunities to improve on in this original article. It looks like in your selected sources you have some about pharmacology and that could help you with creating a treatment section for this article. talking about how there are several options on how to treat panic or someone who has been diagnosed with Panic disorder.

You could also add something about the neurological affects it has on someone's brain. like what happens chemically in the brain when someone experiences a panic attack. You could add something about what happens to the body when they are experiencing it, shortness of breath, anxiety, dizziness, etc.

There could be a section for the epidemiology, showing statistics of how it effects people within the united states and what that looks like across age ranges and genders.

Tone and Balance:

In this original article there is a good base line to work off of. I think with a little rearranging and adding in a few more sections could really make this pop. By adding some clinical information into this article could really help with bringing all the information together. This article does a good job at explaining panic in a way that in historical and informational but not so much clinical. I feel this could be a good area to improve on.

I do feel that this article is particularly unbias and presents the information in a manner that does not try to persuade the reader to one side or the other. I do see that in the talk page a lot of the information in it has not been updated for quite some time so maybe reviewing some of its information like effects and

Sources and References:

Reading through the 5 sources that you selected seemed pretty supportive of what areas should be improved on in this article. you seem to have selected several clinical sources which I believe would be good for this article.

Organization:

The layout of this article is pretty good. As I read I feel there is a good transition from one topic to the next. I feel including some other categories would be easy to do, and would not mess up the flow the article already has.

Images and Media:

If you go the route with adding a treatment section, you could add something images of pills or of a tranquil mind meaning that the medications can bring someone who is treated with medications peace. The original article does have some good imagery already in it but there is always room for more.

Overall impressions:

I think that this is a good article with lots of potential for improvement and updating. I feel that some sections are strong and present just the information and some sections are itching for an update on a clinical aspect.