User:Eroyal11/PTSD after WWII/Katherine Creer 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

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username)
 * I am reviewing Emily Royal's (Eroyal11) article under Shannon Morrison's (Smorri33) sandbox.
 * 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?
 * No, the Lead has not been updated to reflect the new content added by my peers. I would suggest a simple title of PTSD After WWII!
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes! The Lead includes an introductory sentence that is effective in conveying the articles topic of PTSD.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * I feel like the Lead does a great job of providing a brief description of the overall topic of PTSD, but there is no mention of treatment or personal accounts that you give later in the article. If you make a mention of these then all the articles major sections would be covered.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * The Lead does not include information that is not present in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * I feel that the Lead did a good job setting up background for the article, but there are three sentences including the phrase "official recognition," that to me felt like the information had been clearly given with just one mentioning.

Lead evaluation
Overall, I really enjoyed my initial readthrew of the Lead. After answering the questions, my suggestions would include:


 * 1) Making the mention of PTSD being recognized as a psychological disorder in 1980 more concise, into just one sentence
 * 2) After the initial introduction of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder in the first sentence, put (PTSD) in parentheses and then refer to the disorder as that so there isn't as many fully written out terms.
 * 3) The sentence, "In the 1950s, more psychological research was being done and in 1952 the first Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-I) was published," could be made into two, with more information on the psychological research being done in the first sentence and a more concise second.

The Lead gave me enough initial background that I was able to understand the rest of the article! Great job.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes! The content all ties together well and is relevant to the topic of PTSD after WWII.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * All the studies that are cited are up to date and the latest research/experiences that you share in the article are up to date as well.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I felt like there was a wide range of content on PTSD in soldiers. As I was reading, I was interested in the topic and might suggest that a section on PTSD related suicide rates or other physical consequences of PTSD found in soldiers.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * I didn't feel like this article dealt with one of Wikipedias equity gaps. There is no mention of race, socioeconomic background, or gener. However, I feel that the overall topic of PTSD is historically underrepresented, as I learned through this article that it only became acknowledged as a disorder in 1980.

Content evaluation
The content shows that there was extensive research done to write the article. I found myself interested in learning more after reading your work. These are a few suggestions I had:


 * 1) There is a sentence found under the changing termanology section that states, "The term nostalgia was first coined in 1761 when soldiers reported feeling homesick, difficulty sleeping, and anxiety after being in combat during the Civil War," I think there is either a typo or more clarification needed, as the United States Civil War began in 1861.
 * 2) An anonymous account that based off newspaper or journalism from wartime.
 * 3) A greater analysis of the effects on PTSD. I really enjoyed the divorce rates and development of psychiatry, but felt like one ow two more impacts could be described.

I feel that the content of this article was well balanced and researched. It was an extremely informative piece.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes, all the content was neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * In the PTSD article, I didn't feel that any claims were heavily biased.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Since the article is on a disorder, not an ideology or event, I felt there were no viewpoints that were over/underrepresented.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, the content added did not attempt to persuade the reader in ant form.

Tone and balance evaluation
I though the overall tone of the article was phenomenal. The only thing I might add, it you refer to soldiers, but who were the soldiers? What was there demographic and situations. If you explain this it might add a perspective of the equity gaps talked about in the previous section and the representation of different viewpoints could be addressed.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * All the content is backed up by reliable peer reviewed secondary sources of information.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * When I clicked on a few sources, there was a diverse range of topics, and I felt they were very thorough.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes, the sources appear to be up to date and provide accurate information.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Of the 19 sources cited in your article, I felt that the topics and their corresponding authors had a diverse range. I am unsure if there are historically marginalized individuals represented because most sources are on psychiatry and American soldiers in WWII.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * All the links that I checked worked great!

Sources and references evaluation
Your citations within the article are phenomenal! I felt that a lot of times, the sources that you cited were very similar, even just in their titles. Of course, it is always better to overcite, but I felt there could be a better range of topics represented by your references.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Overall, I think the content was well-written, however, I would suggest looking back through at repeated phrases. There was several times reading that I felt like I had already been told the information, just phrased differently.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * There were a few that caught my eye, and I will detail them under the evaluation portion!
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * I appreciate the well-organized topics of your article and feel that they all have clear headings/titles!

Organization evaluation
I liked that your article was clear and concise! A few grammatical things I found were:


 * 1) I think this sentence/context, "reported feeling homesick, difficulty sleeping, and anxiety after being in combat during the Civil War," anxiety could be replaced with anxious.
 * 2) "...some military leadership, including George S. Patton did not believe “Battle Fatigue” to be real..." either a comma after Patton, or add the word who.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes, the images captures a wide variety of topics discussed in the article.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes, simple and direct summarizations!
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * As far as I could tell, there were no issues with Wikipedia's copyright regulations.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes! They are spaced and fit in well with the organization of the article.

Images and media evaluation
I found your pictures informative and a fun visual that tied into the information of your article. I thought you had a good amount, but not too many. I have no suggestions for your visuals!

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?
 * Yes, this article meets Wikipedia's Notability requirements. There is well over 2-3 secondary sources independent of the subject from the 19 references they included.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * I am sure there is more information that could be found on PTSD and specifically it's effect on soldiers after WWII, but for the purpose of this article, I felt there was enough to accurately represent the information displayed.
 * 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?
 * Yes, the article followed the patterns of similar articles. I researched PTSD separately and the corresponding infoboxes, headings, and visual placement correlated well.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * Yes, the article links to six similar articles so there is more traction and attention to the page.

New Article Evaluation
For a new article, I felt that your information and content was in line with all Wikipedias requirements and commonalities.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Since this is a new article, I feel that overall, the content provided gave a fantastic overview of the topic.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * Background information, effects, treatments, and personal experiences were shared that added a strong sense of understanding and all information was clear and concise.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * In connection to the themes of our class, I feel that it would be interesting to dig beyond the historical narrative and see how PTSD effected soldiers of different ethnicities and classes differently after WWII.

Overall evaluation
Overall I felt that the article fulfills it's purpose to educate in an unbiased way. I have left my recommendations to strengthen the article under all of the section evaluations! Thanks for letting me look at your rough draft and feel free to reach out if you want further clarification on any of my suggestions :)