User:Vgs0208/Body dysmorphic disorder/Pattycakekwan888 Peer Review

General info
Vgs0208
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User talk:Vgs0208/Body dysmorphic disorder
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Body dysmorphic disorder

Evaluate the drafted changes
Hello, I am unclear what the article title is related to, is this going to be added to the body dysmorphic disorder or will this become a separate page titled "List of People with Body Dysmorphic Disorder". I would recommend that you change the title of the draft. The content is good with a lot of references, so far so good!

Peer review

Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects:

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? There is no lead published yet.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? There is no lead published yet.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? There is no lead published yet.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? There is no lead published yet.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? There is no lead published yet.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? The topic is body dysmorphic disorder, but the content has a list of famous people who have this disorder. I would say this is not relevant, but can be if the writer changes the title of their sandbox draft article.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No, there is not.
 * 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.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, it is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? The content is backed up by ok sources, considering there is no other source on this topic. So this doesn't count as scholarly article, but its fine.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes the sources are thorough.
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? No
 * 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.) No, since the information from these sources come from mainstream bloggers there is no alternative source.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes all the links work.

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?
 * Her body was not getting the nutrition it needed to get her immune system started to weaken and that's when her body started to slowly give up.
 * stated --> Started
 * Capitalize "Instagram"
 * Lili Reinhart also posted a tweet on September 14, 2023 where she opens up        opens ---> opened
 * Although, he did have great moments while filming.    remove comma after Although.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? I am not sure what the topic is so I can't comment on this.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? I am not sure what the topic is so I can't comment on this.

Images and Media
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? NO media or Images

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is for 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? N/A as I do not know what the article is about
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Good that there is content added, but many phrases can be cut to make the content more precise.