User:KinyeeFong/Mental disorder/Lisa.kasper3 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) Emoon07, Itsnancylam14, Kinyeefong, TekTeklehaimanot
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mental_disorder&oldid=924749181

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No but no substantial material has been added
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, content added was neutral
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, I didn't see any newly added claims that were biased
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * 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? I think there is more literature available that has not been represented
 * Are the sources current? None of the sources I saw were published this year but there is information from the WHO from 2018.
 * 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? Not all of it was, but Doc James has fixed those issues already
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? They were minimal and fixed by Doc James's edits
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? All additions followed the original organization of the article

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? N/A
 * Are images well-captioned? N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? No, but I understand it's difficult to find images related to the topic unless they are history related

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? Edits made by TekTeklehaimanot improve the understanding of risk factors which is a good step toward completion. Other edits focused on clarifying material already in the article which is also very important for completion.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The content added has improved the flow and understandability of the article.
 * How can the content added be improved? Your edits are doing a great job to fix some errors in this article. I think going forward, try to work on simplifying sentences and promoting lay language. Some of the edits used very complex sentences that could make it difficult for comprehension by the general public. Understandability is very important.

Overall evaluation
I do not think the current edits substantially improve the article but they are great steps toward accomplishing that. They have not yet accomplished their goals on the talk page so I hope to see those great ideas come to fruition with their next edits. All of the edits made by this group show a neutral point of view. Keep making those unbiased edits because you're doing a great job.