User:Jake-the-dog-tattoo/User:Annamariefdaly/Institutional syndrome/Jake-the-dog-tattoo Peer Review

NOTE FROM COURSE INSTRUCTOR: I agree that the changes are heading in the right direction. I think there could be a concise lede sentence or two highlighting the overall topic before it launches into the history - and a note that much of the research here is about the history, effects, and critiques of institutions in the context of the U.S. Sources also seem mostly solid, but will need to be incorporated into the final article as footnotes and full references in the reference list.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Annamariefdaly


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Annamariefdaly/Institutional syndrome


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

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Peer Review


 * 1) Lead (Guiding Questions): When I read the introductory paragraph, I noticed that Anna included the original paragraph. She included a section, below it, that says “suggested changes”, and her introductory sentence was strong. She explains that people started to care about the mentally ill in 1752. While her paragraph was shorter, it was straight to the point and it made me want to learn more about mentally ill patients.
 * 2) Content (Guiding Questions): I believe the content, that Anna added, is relevant. This is because she changed the paragraph. Anna also did something that I did, and it was that she included a link to her sources. I took some time to look at her sources, and I believe they are up-to-date.
 * 3) Tone and Balance (Guiding Questions): I believe the content that she added is neutral. The title of her article is “institutional syndrome”, and I believe this syndrome is related to incarceration. She has a paragraph that goes into detail about people, who are in prisons, and how it can negatively affect their mental health. I do not think this content is trying to make the readers pick a side; This is because she includes a study, and studies are credible sources.
 * 4) Sources and References & Organization (Guiding Questios): The content is backed up by a secondary source of information. I was clicking on the links, and not only do they work, but they are credible since one of the sources is from a library. The content is easy to read, and this makes me and other people want to continue learning about this particular topic.
 * 5) Images and Media & New Articles & Overall Impressions (Guiding Questions): Anna did not include any images on her article. I believe the article that she chose does meet Wikipedia’s requirements since it has more than 10 sources. While the actual article is short, it successfully separates information into different sections. Overall, I was not aware that “institutional syndrome” existed. Anna does a successful job at writing information, from a neutral point of view, and including credible sources. One way that she could improve this article is by finding images. Another way she could improve this article is by looking at her own edits, and figuring out where they belong in the article; Or, if they should be in a new section called “Early History” or “Recent Studies”, etc.