User:Ethanhaisma/Veterinary ethics/Hunt212 Peer Review

Lead: The lead of the article appears very well structured. It includes a brief summary of each of the sections the article is covering, and adds important information from each. After reading the entire article, looking back to the lead I still have the same feelings about the lead. Important information from each section is included and offers readers a great introduction to what will be covered. The lead is very well balanced, and includes a proportionate amount of information.

Structure: The sections of the article appear to be in a sensible format. Starting with a history and explanation to what SAD is, then moving into treatments and specific areas affected at a greater number allow readers to understand the affects of the disorder while moving onto likely affected populations, allow for relations to be drawn.

Balance: Each section is adequately proportioned according to the significance of each section. All sections included in the article seemed relevant and provides readers information on the components that weigh into SAD. The editor does a great job including reading from multiple sources about different sections but one perspective that could benefit the article would be a section that comes from individuals with this disorder explaining from their end what living with it is like. The article does not draw conclusions or convince readers about a specific point of view.

Neutrality: Reading through article I would not be able to assume whether the author has SAD and is writing the article, or if the author is just writing the article for the purpose of educating themselves and others without the disorder. There are phrases used to describe a certain group of people. For example the author used "most people" to describe that individuals with SAD also experience other mental disorders as well. I wouldn't necessarily classify this as forming a belief that isn't neutral however. It seems as the author is just explaining a shared experience for these individuals. The article does not directly make claims about an unaccounted for group of people. Just explains the experience of this disorder for those who are diagnosed. The article is not too positive or negative, only informative and seems very neutral in this sense.

Sources: The sources referenced in the article appear reliable from notable sources. There is a wide diversity of sources used throughout the articles body. Not one source is overused. Every section is referenced to a specific source.

Takeaways: The structure of the article is very put together and well constructed. The article is laid out in a way for readers to easily understand and draw connections/relations to. The only edit I could see benefit the article at this point would be adding sources referenced from an individual who is diagnosed/ experiences this disorder. One idea I could take from this article and apply to my own would possibly adding a more diverse lead section in terms of sectioning off the topics that will be covered, could be beneficial.

Final Message: This article is very well constructed and laid out. The editor includes relevant sources to all edits performed, and includes an in-depth history and in depth description of which demographics are affected at a greater rate. I think this article was a great choice in terms of editing to hopefully be promoted and available to a larger audience. It seems as if many people understand that the pace of life changes during the darker months, but not many people seem to think about the actual cause. I think that this article will provide those individuals more information and will allow them to understand more about themselves as well.