User:Klrgmclass/Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders/Aneluhh Peer Review

~Anela peer review "Obscuring root causes" section

Lead:


 * The lead statement of the first paragraph is kind of confusing. Here's a suggested edit to make it more straightforward: "Critics argue that the DSM-5's emphasis on mental pathology overlooks the harmful impact of economic inequality in the United States, thereby hindering efforts to address the underlying causes of psychological distress. Furthermore, the development of diagnoses for the DSM has been linked to capitalist influences."
 * Second paragraph, maybe delete the "however"
 * The last paragraph's first sentence is also kind of confusing, here's suggested edit to make more concise "Critics argue that the DSM-5's broad criteria pathologize a high number of people by attributing mental pathology to those experiencing distress or impairment from various life experiences."

Content:


 * The content is up-to-date, with most recent citation from Davis in 2021
 * In second paragraph, you mention "meanwhile, others find that capitalism exploits..." Can you mention a specific example of "others" (like you did with Davis)
 * In third paragraph, I think you can include more examples other than hysteria
 * In last paragraph, change "Chapman discuss" to "Chapman discusses"
 * I really like how you included incarceration as an example of obscure pathologizing as a way to exploit

Tone:


 * Tone is neutral, critical, and analytical
 * Use of "critics" a lot

Sources and References


 * I liked how you used sources from class!

General info
(provide username)
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):

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.)