User:Nguyenmt1732/Malingering of post-traumatic stress disorder/Tykerriagrey Peer Review

General info
(provide username) Nguyenmt1732
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:Malingering of post-traumatic stress disorder
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

The information in which was added I do feel as if it was beneficial. I feel as if it did add more value to the article, and put a little more information in which it was needed. The content that was added was very clear and concise. It did not leave you wondering at the end if you had read the wrong thing or left you confused. I clicked a few links within the article, and majority of the links in which I clicked indeed worked. One of the links I clicked was the MMPI link, and it took me to another article in which it was about the inventory. I do feel as if the article was very neutral. It did not lean towards one side as if PTSD was bad or if it was good. I do feel as if the article in general should have gave more insight about PTSD at first. It completely went into the malingering of post-trauma depression, instead of explaining what it was first and what the signs could have been. I do not feel as if this was her fault, but the article in general. Each tag within the article was backed by a link in which all of them have a source behind it.