User talk:Gmcphee2018/new sandbox

General info Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username) Gmcphee2018 Link to draft you're reviewing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cluster_B_personality_disorders Lead

Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Not yet, the edits are minimal.

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? "Cluster B personality disorders are characterized by dramatic, overly emotional or unpredictable thinking or behavior and interactions with others". It could be more presice and detailed rather than so broad.

Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? They include antisocial personality disorder, borderline personality disorder, histrionic personality disorder and narcissistic personality disorder.[2] Yes, it lists the 4 disorders is goes on to describe.

Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? are a categorization of personality disorders as defined in the DSM-IV and DSM-5.[1] Yes, it has this information,the terms DSM is not defined, but it has a link that readers could click on.

Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? concise

Lead evaluation overall a good start, could use more specific information reguradfing topic.

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes: "Personality disorders are likely caused by a combination of genetics and environmental factors"

Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, becuase sources are included

Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? "In a study, information found a strong correlation between borderline personality disorder and history of sexual trauma. Research..." the words "in a study"/ "Reasearch" could be replaced with the names or scientists that conducted said experiments. also i think more statistical data and medical research examples could be imputed. Content evaluation

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral? Yes

Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No all information is straightforward.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I think underrepresented due to the lack of details and broad statements.

Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, the information is unbaised

Tone and balance evaluation Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? I dont think it is very reliable, sources.

Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? the sources are too general to be used as informational sources. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Introduction_to_referencing_with_Wiki_Markup/1 Are the sources current? yes, 2019.

Check a few links. Do they work? yes

Sources and references evaluation need better more scientific biased/ research biased evidence with reliable authors.

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? No

Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? yes very much improved organizationfrom original article.

Organization evaluation Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media N/A

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? Images and media evaluation For New Articles Only

If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above. N/A

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? New Article Evaluation Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? article is more complete but needs more details.

What are the strengths of the content added? more descriptive, more organized.

How can the content added be improved? there could be more sources.

Overall evaluation I think this is a great start and the article is much more concise and provide more clear information.