User:Eroyal11/PTSD after WWII/Haleybriggs 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

 * Who's article are you reviewing?: Eroyal11
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Smorri33/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
I really like the background information about the various titles PTSD has been given. It's a great way to introduce the topic. It would be nice, though, to introduce WWII a little bit earlier on in the paragraph. A description of the sections of the article (as the third bullet point says) and what the article will specifically be focusing on may be good to add as well.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
The broad information on PTSD was very informative and compelling to read, so I liked it a lot. It seems like some of it (some of the statements about WWII) could be condensed more, though, so that there is a greater focus on the topic of WWII. Some sections that related more to WWII and it's relationship with PTSD, like 'Prevalence', 'Treatment', and 'Broader Impacts', could be added to since they relate directly to the main topic of the article. I really enjoyed reading the personal accounts; they were very interesting and a great ending.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
I think this article did a very good job of staying neutral. From what I saw, there is little to no bias/analysis of the facts. I don't know for sure, but the personal accounts seem like they are all white men. Their nationality could be a nice addition to their sections, so that they can be compared. Also, adding some information about Axis (German, Japanese, Italian) PTSD as well could be a good perspective to bring in. Again, I don't know if there is a difference between nationalities, but it may be nice to add either way.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
The references seem to be diverse and used often throughout the article. Again, more perspectives on various nationalities may be a nice addition. They look reliable as well.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
The strict breakdown of the multiple different sections made it easy to read because they were very clearly organized. I could not catch any spelling or grammatical errors, however, there could be some that I did not notice.

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?

Images and media evaluation
I really liked the pictures next to the personal accounts, especially the Pearl Harbor picture. I think another picture of a soldier from another nationality (again, from an Axis power may be nice) could be a good way to show diversity in PTSD victims; however, it is not necessary. Maybe a picture relating to the aftermath of the war on PTSD victims could be good too.

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?

New Article Evaluation
I think this article has a good collection of reliable sources, however, more diversity could be added. I also like that the links to other articles are not too abundant, which can be overbearing sometimes. The content box is very helpful and a great addition.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
This article does a great job of demonstrating the impact of PTSD after WWII on both PTSD victims and their families. The description of PTSD overtime is very informative and a good build up to the rest of the article. The personal accounts and impact sections as well as the sources, though, could be more diverse.