User:McEngl491/Mental disorders and gender/98hmarie 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)
 * McEngl491
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Mental disorders and gender

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * It doesn't appear that the student updated content in the lead.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, but it could use a change in wording to better reflect what is to come.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No. The lead is a brief overview of the topic as a whole, but does not mention information (e.g., adolescence, LGBTQ+)
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes. There was mention of Freud and specific mental disorders that are never mentioned again in the content of the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It isn't overly detailed, but rather could be more concise in terms of the content needed. It is good at introducing the topic, but not at setting up the scene for the rest of the article.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes. One specific contribution was to the "suicide" subheading in which the student contributor added an important statistic with a source. There was also important information added about the effects of social media.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes! The sources are from a range of years, but the research added was mostly updated and relevant.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * The only content I would say is missing based on my first read through is information from the lead about Freud and specific mental disorders that was never mentioned again in the article. Either this content should be added in subsections later or removed from the lead/article all together.
 * In addition, there should be more information about the role social media plays on mental disorders according to gender. It might be good to explore which gender uses social media more, which social media sites are preferred by each gender, etc.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes, mainly because of the sources backing up the claims.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, I think the article does a good job at acknowledging the situation of both genders equally in terms of mental disorders.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented
 * I think there needs to be more discussion of the gender dynamics of social media and how that effects mental disorders.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, and I really like the recognition of the gap in research in terms of the effects on the LGBTQ+ community specifically. This is a subtopic that can be addressed as more research arises.

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 believe so
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes! There are a range of sources, but some are from 2019 and 2020.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Most of the links work, though one example of a defective link is the one associated with "women's magazines," which displayed an error message. When clicked on, the link led to a list of magazines, but not a description of the term.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, and the information is supported by sources.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * There aren't many large grammatical errors, though some of the wording could be changed to be more active and concise.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, there are a lot of subsections that organize the article into specific topics.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media (not sure if my peer contributed the images or not)


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * There are only 2 images in the article, but they relate to the specific section content in some way.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * The captions provide a good description of the photo, but don't exactly say anything new in connection to the content.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes

For New Articles Only– N/A
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?
 * Yes, especially the information about social media, which is an important factor in mental disorders in the 21st century.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The sources were helpful, and content was unbias in its presentation. It carefully added to the conversation present in the article and provided another dimension for readers to think about.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Adding more specifics of certain disorders and maybe why these disorders are associated with a particular gender. If there was more time, it might be beneficial to define mental disorders more specifically, as well as the fluid concept of gender that is outwardly present in today's world.

Overall evaluation
This student did a great job at keeping in mind the rules of Wikipedia when editing this article. He/she did not hold back and added content that is beneficial to readers who come to this page about such an important and relevant topic. The extensive source list indicates that this article is well-developed and neutral in tone, and the student contributor kept with the trend as edits were made. For the time given to complete this assignment, I think my peer put in substantial work and paved way for future edits to this article, specifically with the social media sections.