User:Elyonn/Girl Interrupted Mental Disorders in Popular Film: How Hollywood Uses, Shames, and Obscures, Erin Heath/SamanthaGuirado1234 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Elyonn


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Elyonn/Girl Interrupted Mental Disorders in Popular Film: How Hollywood Uses, Shames, and Obscures, Erin Heath - Wikipedia


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

Evaluate the drafted changes
Hi Elyonn! I will be conducting your peer review!

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? There is currently no designated Lead area, but it seems some of the summary portion in the Article body could be shifted toward the lead section. Since you are drafting an entirely new article it seems you are still in the process of solidifying the structure.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? The summary portion may not be most relevant to the topic of the article, but it may be moved to the Lead section to establish context for someone who may not be otherwise familiar with Girl, Interrupted and wants a quick synopsis. Depending on which direction you go with for the character portion as well you could potentially reveal close proximity to the topic at hand if you discuss their respective mental health issues.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? The content is up-to-date since it is an extension of a piece that has already been published and therefore immutable. Adding new developments of the discussions surrounding the film would be the only up-to-date material required and your sources do reflect present time.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? The character portion is missing; I am not sure what direction you are going with for that section i.e., will you include a brief description of each character, or will you relay each character's specific struggle with mental health to how their particular circumstances perpetuate Hollywood's flawed take on mental health?

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? The content added does not really fit into the realm of neutral, but the article's intention is not to be neutral, so it aligns with the intention.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? In the section surrounding the fine line between sanity and insanity it seems you may be leaning toward there being minimal differences between the socially deemed unstable and stable people. "While everyone that has been admitted appears to be labeled as many things that classify them as “mentally unstable”, they also very much appear to be sane." This claim surmises people exhibiting symptoms of mental illness do not drastically deviate from neurotypical people, therefore there should not be such a stigma surrounding mental illness.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? I think in general the direction your article takes is abundantly clear within the title. You are shedding light on mental disorders in Hollywood and denouncing the negative connotation they assign to mental health disorders. While some readers may disagree, you are including supporting evidence as to why Hollywood does not accurately represent mental health across all platforms, but you can also potentially neutralize the article by shifting to "Hollywood and Their Use of Mental Disorder in Popular Film" and then add how it is shameful throughout the piece with an opposing view to increase validity.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Some of the content is summarizing which I believe is mostly your own knowledge of the film. The impending questions portion has some information backed by the secondary sources.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) In the two questions with most of your content the cited sources are accurately reflected so there are no inconsistencies between the content in your sources and what you expressed in the article.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? The sources provided are thorough and work very well with the topic of this article; however, they have not been utilized to their maximum potential in the draft. You could include more directly from the sources and I believe it would create an outstanding article.
 * Are the sources current? Most of the sources are fairly current, but the source included in the Knight Ridder Newspapers was written more closely to the release date of the film.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? The sources themselves do include a diverse spectrum of authors that would offer an excellent article with sufficient discourse on the relationship between mental health and media representation. There are not historically marginalized individuals, but this article would not really call for historically subjugated people because the sources are personal interpretations of a film released in the late 90's.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) There are more sources available, but these are legitimate and sustainable on their own.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The content included is concise and easy to read for the average reader which is important to reaching a larger audience.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? There are no spelling errors but there are some modifications to be made with grammar. For instance, the line "while in the institution Susanna learns she has borderline personality disorder, which she is diagnosed with" ends with a preposition and thus makes the sentence less formal. It can be rewritten as follows: Susanna is diagnosed with borderline personality disorder while in the institution. Small alterations of that sort will maximize the quality of your article.

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is for 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? In terms of reliability the article does include sufficient secondary sources and could maybe include more varied information i.e., significant coverage to address on a more comprehensive scale how Hollywood uses, shames, and obscure mental health.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? There is a lot of literature published on this subject, so you are able to gather a lot of information supporting all angles on this topic. The list of sources provided are relevant and all have some solid, useful information.
 * 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? There is a clear direction in how you want to structure the article with section headings. You can include a more clear break between each of the sections or maybe add the characters portion directly under the summary since that would be merely outlining the film whereas the impending questions portion is your analysis.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? There doesn't seem to be footnotes or links to other articles which I think would ultimately be useful because of the nature of your article! Since it is an elaboration of a film that has already gained sufficient notoriety and has an exhaustive list of articles published on it you can include links in the body leading to pre-established content.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Overall, being that it is a new article it is still in the very beginning stages of drafting. There should be more content included, grammatical attention, and structural focus to address the completeness of the article in time for the final revision.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The content addresses impending questions on inconsistencies in the film regarding depiction of mental health which, with further elaboration, can raise some interesting questions for viewers who have otherwise not viewed the film through that lens.
 * How can the content added be improved? The draft seems to encapsulate more questions you have written for yourself that you hope to answer once you have furthered the article. You also include a brief summary of the film beforehand and are going to add a description of the characters. I think you can include more anecdotes of the film paired with secondary source interpretation of their take on media representation of mental health. Your Heather Stuart source, for instance, can be relayed back to a scene in the film depicting their portrayal of mental illness. You can then elaborate on how these fixated stereotypes could negatively affect viewers who suffer from similar mental health issues and why media further exacerbates the issue without offering solace.