User:Ctom1999/Schizoaffective disorder/Ajr1234 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(Ctom1999)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ctom1999/Schizoaffective_disorder?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


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

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)


 * The lead section has been updated to reflect the new content added. The lead does include information that is not presented in the original article. The lead in the draft is concise and does not appear overly detailed.
 * The content added is relevant to the topic and gives a new perspective on the types of schizoaffective disorder. Most of the information added is up-to-date which is good because it gives new information about how schizoaffective disorder is approached. All the content in the draft is relevant to the topic and nothing is out of place. I especially like the content about the types of schizoaffective disorder which will be great for readers because it offers them to learn something new. The content addresses a topic that is underrepresented in psychology because I do not hear much about schizoaffective disorder so this is exciting for the field as it will allow people to learn something new and also provide information that is new researched.
 * The content added is presented in a neutral point of view and it does not appear to be heavily biased toward a certain position. There are not any viewpoints that are overrepresented of underrepresented, there is a good balance of information. It does not seem like one section has more information than the another section. The content does not attempt to guide the reader in favor of one position or away from another.
 * All of the information is backed up by a reliable secondary source. The content added accurately reflects the information presented in the sources. All of the sources are reflect the available literature on the topic and most of the sources are within the last five years, which is very current. Even though the sources provided are great, there are better sources available, for example, under the fifth source "Anxiety disorder comorbidity in bipolar disorder, schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder" there are some similar articles under the original one that talk about a clinical descriptive of mixed mania, which is related to schizoaffective disorder. Also, under the source about bipolar disorder and it's overlap with schizoaffective disorder and schizophrenia there is an article that talks about schizoaffective and future diagnosis, which could offer new information about how schizoaffective disorder is diagnosed in new patients. The article is also a secondary source. When clicking on the links of the sources all of them work, which is good. The sources appear to be written by a diverse group of authors.
 * Some of the content is concise and easy to read however, the sentences under mechanism are a little confusing. I think it would helpful if white matter is explained and why it matter sin relation to schizoaffective disorder. Also, explaining why hippocampal volume and why deformities matter because without that information it is hard to understand why this would be a problem for people with schizoaffective disorder. Perhaps explaining what the right lentiform nucleus, left temporal gyrus, and right precuneus and why it is detrimental to people with this disorder would also help. I say this because some readers may be left confused about why this matters or what it is. Overall, the content is well organized and is relevant to the topic.
 * I think the information added will improve the overall quality of the original article. There is some much new information about schizoaffective disorder which is great because it is a subject that is not the discussed in the media or research. This information will allow readers to learn new information. The strengths of the content added are that all the information is relevant and easy to understand. Also, the content added are mostly form sources that are from the last five years. The weaknesses of the content added include the information under the diagnosis mostly because the language is kind of confusing and it may be hard for some readers to understand. Another weakness is that some of the references could be better. I would suggest looking up other information about the sections and also comparing the information to the sources in the draft. Overall, this is a good draft and I honestly learned a lot of new information about the topic. With a few improvements, this could be a really good article with up-to-date information. This is a very exciting topic and I'm really impressed with the amount of content added.