User:Mengyurui/Major depressive disorder/Natgorman Peer Review

User talk:Mengyurui/Major depressive disorder

User:Mengyurui https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mengyurui/Major_depressive_disorder

Lead has been changed to major depressive disorder. Content is relevant to the topic, however nothing has been changed from the portion of text that was taken out of the original Wikipedia page. The content that was added were only citations and those citations were only directed to give an overview about the diseases talked about in the draft, which helped get a better understanding of the disorder. .No images were added to the draft. All the sources that were added were current, up-to-date, and are present in the draft. All of the citations that were added were not previously added before on the original Wikipedia page. Overall, nothing was changed, no words were taken away or added, the only thing that was changed in the draft for the addition of citations to help get a better grasp on what the disease actually is.

Hi Mengyurui, Overall I think your additions to the article definitely help further the understanding of major depressive disorder. I think your additions were very relevant to the topic and these times. I have fixed some minor grammar and spelling mistakes, as well as added some of the abbreviations for things you discussed (PTSD & SAD). I think to improve the quality a little bit you should add a sentence or two, as well as a source regarding the use of digital devices discussed at the end. I would also like to see a little source regarding COVID-19 and depression, which you might be able to find information about on CDC website. Great work! Natgorman (talk) 00:44, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

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) Mengyurui Link to draft you're reviewing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mengyurui/Major_depressive_disorder Lead major depressive disorder Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? yes Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? yes Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? no Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? no Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? yes, very concise Lead evaluation Content Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic? yes, helps further understanding of topic Is the content added up-to-date? yes Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? no Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? no not in my opinion Content evaluation Tone and Balance Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral? yes Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? no Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? no, well written Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? no, remains neutral Tone and balance evaluation 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 Are the sources current? yes Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? yes Check a few links. Do they work? yes, all work and are relevant to topic Sources and references evaluation Organization Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? yes, very easy to read and comprehend Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? yes Organization evaluation Images and Media Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? no images Are images well-captioned? NA Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? NA Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? NA Images and media evaluation 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? New Article Evaluation Overall impressions Guiding questions:

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? yes, I think the added content gives readers a more holistic look at major depressive disorder What are the strengths of the content added? they add details that were missing in previous article How can the content added be improved? possible include information regarding the pandemic & depression Overall evaluation The additions to the article are very well written and provide good insight to the topic. Nice work! Natgorman (talk) 18:33, 6 December 2020 (UTC)