User talk:JenniferESims/sandbox

Peer review General info Whose work are you reviewing? Username: JenniferESims Link to draft you're reviewing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JenniferESims/sandbox Lead Guiding questions: Has the lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, you didn’t add any new categories or information but the intro sentence was solid, your lead explains what the article will be about and what points are made. Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, there is a definition of category B personality disorders that explains what the article is going to be covering. Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No, but this would be beneficial. Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It’s more concise than overly detailed Lead evaluation The lead is solid, there isn’t much that could be fixed, its clear and to the point. Content Guiding questions: Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes Is the content added up-to-date? Yes Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No Content evaluation All of the content is relevant and useful on the page, although more detail could be helpful about each individual type of disorder. Tone and Balance Guiding questions: Is the content added neutral? Yes Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, just pure data is added and it is all unbiased information. Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? There isn’t really a viewpoint it's just straight facts so maybe add in a viewpoint if you can. Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No Tone and balance evaluation You need to add a viewpoint instead of just stating facts about the disorders, try to say something like “how to differentiate the types of disorders. I understand though that this topic doesn’t leave much room for bias because it is just raw facts. Sources and References Guiding questions: Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes they do. Are the sources current? Yes Check a few links. Do they work? Yes both of the links work. Sources and references evaluation The sources are strong and you cited them well but maybe add a few more sources and a little more information for each disorder from different websites. Organization Guiding questions: Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, it was well written and easy to understand. 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, it is very well organized. Organization evaluation Everything is in a well thought out order. It was beneficial to add the definition of personality disorders then explaining how they can be viewed and characterized. Images and Media Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No Are images well-captioned? N/A Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A Images and media evaluation No images are necessary for her articles topic because there is no way to take a picture of a personality disorder. For New Articles Only If the draft you're reviewing is 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? Yes How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all the available literature on the subject? Yes 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? Yes Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? It’s 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? Yes What are the strengths of the content added? Your information was important, the examples of the personality disorders were the strongest changes added because they are necessary in understanding what each disorder look like. How can the content added be improved? There could be more details and it could be written with smaller easier words to understand so the large words don't take away from the main point of the definitions. Overall evaluation The new additions to the article are thorough and helpful when trying to understand the different types of personality disorders. You did a nice job with the 2 sources and the introduction to the topic. It may be beneficial to the overall article to add a little more detail and explain the larger words to make a smoother understanding of all the new information.