User:MaddiMcg/Conversion disorder/Sawyerbrady44 Peer Review

General info
MaddiMcg
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


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

Evaluate the drafted changes
The Lead is not very concise and seems to jump around a bit. The terminology used in the beginning of the article are complex and not easy to read. There is a lot of assuming that is happening in the lead and the information is not backed by sources. The lead does not mention demographics, though it is mentioned later in the article. It does not give a clear cut definition of what conversion disorder is.

As far as the content, there is a lot of information that points to Conversion disorder beginning with some sort of a stressor or type of distress. The information is relevant to the topic but seems to be in a scattered order. The information does not flow in an easy to read manner. I do think the content is up to date.

There is good tone and balance throughout the article. The article seems to just relay information about symptoms, diagnoses, treatments, alternative explanations for symptoms and history of the topic.

While there is a lot of secondary sources added to the article, there are some points that were made in the article that are not backed by any source. Some statements seem to make assumptions rather than credit a journal or text book that has backed research. The article's history section talks about historically marginalized people and how conversion disorder was first thought to be. The World Health Organization could have information pertaining to other diseases that require the same symptoms such a toxoplasmosis. This was mentioned in the talk page and has a lot of the same symptoms as conversion disorder. There are a few links that do not work when clicked on.

The article is lacking really bad when it comes to organization. The information is presented in a complex, hard to read kind of pattern. The talk page may be even more confusing when it comes to what is being added and by who exactly. There seems to be arguments in the past about certain things being added of moved around. There are several grammatical errors noted throughout the article. Some parts of sentences are past tense while other parts of it are present.

The one photo that is in the article is in a good. spot and meets the Wikipedia guidelines because it was taken from the free media repository. Adding more photos could help this article be more visually appealing.

I think the things that have been added, or in this case removed, added value to the article. I would say more things need to be taken out and other things need to be rearranged or reworded to help the flow of the article. It seems that information is kind of all over the place. If key points were summed up into smaller sentences I think it would add a lot of value to the article.