User:Craig lane5/User:Craig lane5/sandbox/WynnUCBA Peer Review

General info
(provide username)
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Craig lane5/sandbox
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):

Peer review
the article has really good points about how athletes with depression between ages 18-25 have the highest percentage of depression.

Changes I would suggest is being more specific about athletes depression and what they go to. I feel like he is summurazing the article instead of putting it into his own words. For example when he says depression affects athletes daily life. Explain it like how does it affect for example football is a athlete performing worse or is he now showing up to practice.

The most important thing that you can do to improve the article is be specific with what is going on. I want to know specific examples of how depression is affecting a athlete and what that looks like and how can we as a community or coach prevent that like counseling every week for the whole team.

I can't find any similar to my article from his own article.

Looking at the lead by itself i somewhat feel satisfied that i know what its talking about.

looking at the lead again it does reflect what the article is talking about

the lead kind of gives more weight than others due to lack of information.

the sections are not organized well in sensible order. I think they would be better presented due by the issue for example. talk about the depression first then go down with effects and then causes of the depression then at the end talk about ways to treat it.

I would say the sections are equal to its importance to the articles subject

I think the article does a good job explaining viewpoints. I dont see anything left out

the article does not try to convince the reader anything about depression

i can not guess the perspective of the author

some words and phrases are the ones that are broad like they, he, it. I need to know who or give me a noun.

the article does no make claims on behalf of unnamed people

the article talks about positive information but also gives negative information but more positive

the article does have reliable sources

I didnt go to deep into the articles supporting the article so i dont know

the sources that the articles have are fine and none of them are mispresented