User:Chelsea Quinn/Pseudodimentia/Calebdroush Peer Review

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

 * Pseudodementia

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * It seems there is no need for it.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * THe lead already had a good introductory sentence
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes it does.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Not that I can find
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It may be overly detailed. Starting to get into the brush when it can be saved for the specific sections

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * It did shed some light on a couple of different topics
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * It seemed to be so
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Nothing i can find

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes, it explained and expounded on previously added portions
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, it all is neutral
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * None that I can see
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * Not that I can see.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * It seems to be.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * It seems to be taken from the other portions
 * Are the sources current?
 * Some seem a little dated, but that is for sections that speak on the history of the term so it makes sense.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * The ones I checked did.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * It is very concise and does a good job pairing down and clarifying the previous portion.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * None that I can see.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * It seems to be

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * It clarifies the portion but doesn't add anything to the article
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * It is concise and clarifying.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Look up newer and more recent studies and see if there are newer theories that contradict or corraborate the current theories that are in the article. Maybe move some of the dated portions into the history of the term instead of making it seem that they are the most current topics of the research.