User:Jasmine031502/Mental illness in ancient Greece/Peter Eldredge 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? Jasmine031502
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Jasmine031502/Mental illness in ancient Greece

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, however there is no heading to this article.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise enough.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Good overview of mental illness in Ancient Greece.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? I believe this is a topic that has not been covered in great detail on Wiki.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? They are addressed evenly.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Not "all" I am sure but there are multiple strong sources.
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? It was a bit messy in terms of formatting and needs an headline.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes. But separate the references from the writing itself.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media. No images added.


 * 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?

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?

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 used a variety of new sources to add a good chuck of new information to the page. I thought the new information was concise and thorough. The use of multiple sources to add multiple unique perspective on a topic that is hard to cover, as medical practice was not equipped to handle mental illness in this time period. The only thing that I think could be addressed is the organization and presentation on the draft. I noticed there was no specific heading for the writing and the reference section was not spaced from the writing. I am sue this is an easy fix and can be addressed when adding this info into the already existing page. In conclusion, this is a good start to the project drafting process and is much further than many articles I have seen. ====