User:Lizzymckenzie/Specific phobia/Npodstawska 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? Lizzymckenzie
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Lizzymckenzie/Specific phobia

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * 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? Yes, I feel like it has a lot more therapy options than the original article. It also is not focused on one therapy more than others. Each therapy option has a few sentences, which is good. The information describes the therapy.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? I don't think so

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Mostly yes, however, the last sentence feels a bit biased.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? The last sentence about medication. I think the original article made this idea less biased.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? All feel pretty equal to me
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No. This is good. I feel like it gives unbiased options

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? Yes, I feel like they are very broad and have a lot of information.
 * Are the sources current? They're not too current, the most current one is 2012. However, they are also not too old. Only one is from 1959. The other two are from the early 2000s, which I think is ok. It would be great to try to include a fairly current source, from within the last few years (5-7 years), but I also did not do the research so I don't know whether there are such sources that could help.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work? The doi for the first source doesn't work. There is no doi for the 4th source written in, but when I click on the article they give a doi for the chapter. I think that doi might be a good thing to include. The last source doesn't include the year, but it was published in 2012

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? I feel like the paragraph is written a bit like an essay. It doesn't sound like something you'd find in a dictionary (where you'd just find clear information). It might be the use of the word "one" frequently. Maybe using "person" would be better? It might sound more like a dictionary
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? There are some run on sentences, and sometimes the subject/verb agreement is off.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? I think separating the different options into different paragraphs would make it easier to read. The layout of the original article is good. Giving all the options in one paragraph makes it hard to follow and hard to see the different options. If you separate them, it'll look better and be clearer.

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


 * 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? This edit gives more options and more information, which is very good in terms of people looking for information
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Way more information, and it is described well
 * How can the content added be improved? Separating the therapy options to make it easier to read and changing word choice to make it sound more like a dictionary and less like an essay