User:Mjcorlew/Acute Stress Disorder/AlramirezPsyc 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? Maggie Corlew
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Mjcorlew/Acute Stress Disorder

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? The article is focused on the differences between ASD and PTSD so I believe the lead has been modified to explain their main source, which I find very helpful. A real nice, concise, elaboration of the DSM.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? The lead doesn't exactly describe the article's topic in the first sentence but does towards the end. I'm not sure if this is a problem since the introduction is short and concise. If it were a longer introduction, then maybe it would be more appropriate to explain the topic towards the beginning.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The lead does establish the two major sections (ASD and PTSD)
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? The lead does include information that is not present in the original article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is very concise, especially for an introduction pertaining to the DSM.

Lead evaluation
Very concise and informational lead, excellent introduction!

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? The content is definitely relevant to the topic at hand.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? The content is up-to-date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? To my understanding, there isn't any information missing.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? The draft does touch on the differences between ASD and PTSD which is something that is hard to distinguish. The differences are also something that isn't commonly done.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? The content is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? The writer(s) of the draft went about this with no bias.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I don't believe the different viewpoints are overrepresented or underrepresented, but they are displayed differently.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No persuasion involved, pure information.

Tone and balance evaluation
Tone and balance was great! The draft appears to be very objective!

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Although the content is not backed up by a secondary source, the original source, I believe, is more than credible.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? The sources are thorough.
 * Are the sources current? The source is the most up-to-date diagnostic/manual for mental health (DSM).
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? The DSM, I believe, does try to include historically marginalized individuals but there is still a lot of work to be done on the matter.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Sources and references evaluation
Sources and references look well, you can't go wrong with using the DSM for this topic!

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * 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?

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? I believe the article clears up any confusion one may have between ASD and PTSD, which is a common.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? There are many strengths to this article such as tone, information include, as well as writing style. Very clear and concise, which is highly appreciate from my end! (My type of reading preference)
 * How can the content added be improved? The only thing I would think to change would probably be the organization of the information. For the PTSD section, the information is written in paragraphs and is structured like an essay while the ASD section is organized as bulletpoints. Personally, I didn't mind the structure but I thought I would mention this!

Overall evaluation
Very easy, concise, and informational draft. I enjoyed reading this over!