User:Kmcmiche/Antidepressant discontinuation syndrome/Nicolemicha Peer Review

General info
Kmcmiche
 * Whose work are you reviewing?
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Kmcmiche/Antidepressant discontinuation syndrome
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Antidepressant discontinuation syndrome

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead: I do not see the lead in the sandbox, however, the lead of the article reflects major points in the article and gives a background to the information that is foreshadowed. The lead also includes information that is concise and easy to read. One piece of information I would edit would be the cultural and historical part of antidepressant discontinuation syndrome. Some of this type of information is listed in the article body, but not in the lead.

Content: The content that is added is relevant to the topic, however, it does seem very thorough and detailed so perhaps it will need some additional information explaining the concept. Furthermore, the content is up to date and I do not believe there is information that does not belong. Rather, I would add some more information regarding the claim of SNRI venlafaxine having higher incidence in withdrawal symptoms. Perhaps giving some more definitions and background information will allow to reader to comprehend the information presented better.

Tone and Balance: The content that is added is neutral and does not persuade the reader to change their perspective. Rather, the information, suggests a possible outcome when SNRI venlafaxine is involved compared to other SNRI's. The viewpoints listed are not overrepresented or underrepresented, the viewpoints simply state a viewpoint.

Sources and References: The content added does have a reliable secondary source of information and accurately reflects what the source says. The source does reflect available literature on the topic, and it is current. The citation link works as well and I could access the article the information is referring to.

Organization: The article is well organized and I believe the added information enhances the reader's understanding of the topic. I do not spot any grammatical or spelling errors. The only thing I would suggest is an organizational flow contributing more information to the claim that was mentioned in the sandbox.

Images and Media: I do not see any added images or media.

Overall Impressions: The information added does add quality to the article and make the article more complete as it gives the reader more information surrounding the topic. The strengths of this article I would say are the citations used and the quality of new information. Something to improve would be explaining this topic in a simple manner so that the reader could follow on the path of the topic.