User:PsychgirlTYTY/Anxiety/Jkb0001 Peer Review

General info
PsychgirlTYTY
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:Anxiety
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Anxiety

Evaluate the drafted changes

 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * I think most everything was relevant to the topic. Some distractions could be the the short and long term anxiety section as it feels like there could be more information there.
 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * The article is neutral in its presentation of information
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Like I mentioned above, the long term and short term section seems like it could be longer.
 * Check the citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
 * All of the links for the citations I checked worked. The claims were also supported by the articles.
 * Is each fact supported by an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
 * The articles linked were scientific articles of non-bias matter.
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that should be added?
 * Some information, such as the 15+ year old article on the amygdala may want to be updated.