User:Zclayt/Abnormal psychology/Dennyslimon10 Peer Review

General info
User: Zclayt
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Zclayt/Abnormal psychology
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Abnormal psychology

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead

Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No, it has not yet.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, the introductory sentence describes the article's topic well.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes. Perhaps in the lead they could include a sentence about the history that way the reader also knows the history will be discussed.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, everything mentioned in the lead is talked about.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? I believe the lead is very good. It is not overly detailed and most of it can be easily understood.

Content

Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, all of the content is relevant.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, the content is up to date. It even includes a source from 2019 which is pretty recent.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? The "humors" section is relatively short. It could be a good section to work on and perhaps add more information.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes, it tackles the medical condition equity gap. It talks about mental disorders which are not usually talked about.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, all of the content added is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, I did not see any claims that appeared heavily biased toward a particular position.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I think a little more information could be added to a few sections. Such as the irrational beliefs section. Perhaps a few examples of more information.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, the content added is unbiased.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? I did not see a source for the new content. But I did see a lot of existing sources on the article.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) Yes, the content does.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes all of the sources are thorough.
 * Are the sources current? Yes, some sources are even from 2019.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes, there are a total of 55 sources which is a good variety.
 * 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.) I think all of the source are very good and are very useful in the information they provided.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, all of the links I attempted worked.

Organization

Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The added content has a few errors, most of them being grammatical errors.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Yes, a few.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes.

Images and Media


 * No images or media were added.

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes, I believe the added content could be useful
 * What are the strengths of the content added? New information is presented in the content added.
 * How can the content added be improved? It can be improved by rewriting a few sentences so they are grammatically correct.

Response to Feedback:
Hi Dennyslimon10, thank you for the peer review. I will be reviewing and making my edits to the article that I have chosen. I have looked back over my lead paragraph and have decided to change the head title of the article within my sandbox because the original title, "Abnormal psychology" sounds very frightening and as newly named the title brings a more inclusive and a welcome feeling to the topic. Changing the title from Abnormal Psych to Psychopathology will enhance precision and better align with professional standards, reduce stigma, and better reflects the current scientific and clinical approach to the study of mental disorders.