User:Joeception/Phobia/Pjypark21 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Joeception


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * n/a


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

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead – n/a

Content –


 * Topics added such as classification, ICD-11 definition, DSM-V criteria, and causes appear to be relevant, up-to-date, and appropriate
 * The 'Research directions' section may have too much detail. I think shorter sentences highlighting the main innovations may make it clearer to the readers.
 * Could be interesting to incorporate some demographics/epidemiology or highlight racial/socioeconomic disparities in diagnoses of phobias if any, re: Wikipedia's equity gap initiative

Tone and Balance –


 * Contents added appear neutral/objective

Sources and References –


 * Added references appear appropriate i.e. utilizes major/established sources like the ICD-11, DSM-V, etc. as well as meta-analysis/systematic review for some new content added.

Organization –


 * Contents added to existing sections and sub-sections appear organized.
 * New sections added appear in locations that make sense e.g. 'Prognosis' after treatment; this isn't a part you edited, but one suggestion I have is to move-up epidemiology near the top (maybe after classification) for conventional presentation of medical topics (definition/classification, epi, pathogenesis, diagnosis, treatment, etc.)

Image and Media – n/a