User:Nurgul Ozkisi/Mood stabilizer/Ellyse w Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Nurgul Ozkis


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nurgul%20Ozkisi/Mood_stabilizer?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nurgul%20Ozkisi/Mood_stabilizer?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead   The lead of my peers' wikipedia article included an introductory sentence that was well crafted, creative, and descriptive. Upon reading the introductory sentence of my peers article,  I now have a further understanding about what is to come in this article. Additionally, the lead has also provided a brief description of the information that will be the article's major focus point which was mood stabilizers and their uses. My peer has also done an effective job at describing unfamiliar terms, like for example, manic episodes and listing things like serotonin, dopamine and norepinephrine and letting the reader know that these are drugs that have to do with modifying chemical levels within the brain. The lead is concise in that it is not overly lengthy and overpowering to the readers where they would lose interest, but at the same time has enough detail that there are no further questions that could be asked.

Content

The content within the peer reviewed article is up to date and uses current findings that are relevant to the topic. There is no content that is missing or does not belong within the wikipedia article. The information added is not only important but it adds value to the article by enhancing points that could have been elaborated on further in the article. The peer edit also makes the further elaborated points more understandable to the readers by clearly defining certain complex terms and explaining them, especially the association of how the pharmacological terminology is decided. Additionally, the picture in which was added to the edit of this page is a great addition to the overall wikipedia page. The attached picture includes a brief but insightful description under the picture which mentioned different types of antipsychotic medications giving the readers a relevant visual that is related to the information being presented. The picture is also placed in an area which is relevant to the information that is being explained and aligns with wikipedia's copy copyright regulations and standards. I particularly like how my peers introduced certain subtopics before explaining those topics in depth, which is seen right above the subtopics of exercise and psychotherapy.

Tone

The overall tone of this article is neutral. There are no persuasive types of claims that are trying to convince the reader that something is right or wrong within the revised article. None of the information is over explained in a way that puts heavy emphasis in one area over another. One area in which I think could have been worded differently but is very minor is under the “ uses' ' section particularly when discussing lithium. The statement in which I am referring to is “ One of the most well-known mood stabilizers is lithium”. Instead I would rephrase this to “a very commonly used mood stabilizer is lithium”. In doing this I think it keeps the overall tone even more neutral, however in the context I do see why my peer had used his/her choice of words and it is still not convincing enough to say that the overall tone is changed in a way which has an opinion within the statement.

Sources references

Overall the edited article was extremely organized and easy to follow. The article is well organized because it is very concise with the information and it is clearly outlined and laid out as to what are the edited parts (bolded) and the original article information regular unbolded print/font. Majority of the information is backed up with a reference however it would have been beneficial to add a reference in the lead and the examples section of the edited article as there is heavy data being shared. The references are correct and the information is current and up to date. Additionally, the references represent a wide audience such as male and female authors which creates diversity. The references are also from scholarly sources instead of websites which are highly reliable and valid.