User:Mjcorlew/Phobia/Fwilliamson3 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? Mjcorlew
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Mjcorlew/Phobia

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? The primary lead was not edited for this article, but the introduction to the different subsections was. The section lead now reflects the different sorts of phobias that they will talk about more in depth.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? I would consider removing the beginning part of the section that talks about the DSM-5 as it isn't entirely relevant to phobias. You could just begin with listing the three types of phobias instead.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes, it clearly outlines which phobias will be discussed.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Fairly concise, again I would just consider removing the part explaining what the DSM-5 is.

Lead evaluation
Good lead! I don't think you need much introduction to the different types of phobias you'll be talking about, so not spending too much time here is okay.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, it reflects the most up-to-date information available about specific phobias.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No. I like your format of beginning with a brief description of the disorder and then going more into depth on what criteria one needs to meet to qualify for the disorder.
 * 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 know whether this is entirely relevant for this article, but perhaps including some relevant statistics about the different groups disproportionately affected would be helpful.

Content evaluation
Overall, the content of your Wikipedia article was strong. In addition to providing the information needed to qualify for a certain disorder, it might be helpful to also include relevant statistics about who these disorders affect most.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes it is. All content is pulled from the American Psychiatric Association which is considered a neutral source.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No, it seems like it's only really possible to provide one viewpoint here.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, it only attempts to inform the reader of what the different types of disorders are.

Tone and balance evaluation
You did a great job of remaining neutral and educating your reader as opposed to trying to persuade them one way or the other!

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? I would say that this is maybe an area where your article could be improved. The entirety of your article is based on one source–the American Psychiatric Association–which makes sense for the parts that only discuss criteria for the disorder, but maybe as you revise and add some more information you could look for sources outside of that that still support what your article already says.
 * Are the sources current? Yes.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Not particularly, but this could be worked on as you add more sources per my suggestions above.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Sources and references evaluation
Your content is clearly backed up but could use some work in terms of providing a variety of sources. Shouldn't be too difficult of a fix, though!

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes.

Organization evaluation
Amazing job here! Your article is easy to understand and follow.

Images and Media (N/A)
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 (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? Absolutely–I feel as though there is much more information on the different kinds of phobia now whereas before there wasn't.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The information presented is concise, clear, and backed up by strong references.
 * How can the content added be improved? Most of my suggestions can be found throughout this peer review sheet, but to summarize I think the two biggest areas to add consider revising are your diversity of sources and touching up the lead to this section to only absolutely necessary information.

Overall evaluation
Overall, you have a very strong article and it's clear that you put a lot of thought into it. It seems like with a few minor touch-ups your article will be ready for submission! Nice work!