User:PsychgirlTYTY/Anxiety/Positive not popular pysch Peer Review

General info
PyschgirlTYTY
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PsychgirlTYTY/Anxiety?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template:
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists) Article:

Lead

 * The lead is concise and informative. It include the necessary definitions and facts necessary to undertsand the topic at hand completely.

Content

 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, it specifies the definition and establishes new information
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes it is, it specifically mentions the DSM-5
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Thus far there is not, but the overall content is lacking in quantity.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No it does not, it is focused on a fairly mainstream topic.

Tone and Balance

 * Is the content added neutral? It is, it only serves to strengthen the material.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? There are not any heavily biased claims.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Based on current edits, very few viewpoints are included at all.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No it does not.

Sources and References

 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No there are some spaces that could be sourced more appropriately.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) The content that is sourced does accurately reflect the cited sources.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes they do, and they are current as well.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Not that I can tell, but this is primarily due to a lack of overall content and sources.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) Possibly, but as there is very little content at present there are bigger issues.