User:Dingers99/Social media and suicide/Ellsbells1 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Dingers99


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dingers99/Social_media_and_suicide?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Social media and suicide

Evaluate the drafted changes
I really enjoyed reading your lead section. I think it's very strong, and provides an extremely well summarised account of the topic. The lead sentence details exactly what the article is about, and it does a decent job describing the major sections of the article. I don't think it's overly detailed, but I wouldn't recommend adding more to it. However, I would definitely add more references to the lead specifically. There is only 1 source cited at the moment, so it would be beneficial to add at least a few more.

The content you added is definitely relevant to the topic, and the reference I can see is up to date. I would recommend going in and editing your sources to make sure the "check date values" error goes away. I had to do this too for many of my sources. From what you've already edited, I don't think much is missing. Obviously you're still working on your article, so there is more content to add along the way. It would be interesting to add more info to this section from marginalized groups. If you can, try and find more sources about this to add.

I appreciate the tone of this article a lot. It is very fact based, and it doesn't seem biased in any direction. My biggest recommendation here is to add many more citations to the article overall. There are a few places in the body that have a citation needed notification. 3 of your references are showing up a little funny to me:

login.collegeofidaho.idm.oclc.org. doi:10.1080/26408066.2020.1788478 https://login.collegeofidaho.idm.oclc.org/login?qurl=https://www.tandfonline.com%2fdoi%2ffull%2f10.1080%2f26408066.2020.1788478. Retrieved 2022-10-09.

Since I am logged into the C of I, I'm not sure why this is happening. However, it wasn't happening with the other article I reviewed. Maybe a good thing to look into, but it totally could be something on my end as well. Since I can't see them, I'm not sure if they're current or the authors are diverse. The sources that I can see do work, and seem reputable and accurate.

Overall, I believe the article so far is well organized and well written. It's easy to read, and full of good information. Moving forward I would recommend adding more citations to both the existing article and what you add. Good job! I really like it!