User talk:Mwright561/new sandbox

This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username): Mwright Link to draft you're reviewing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mwright561/new_sandbox Lead: There are many forms of treatment for Cluster B personality disorders.

Guiding questions: What are the leading treatments for Cluster B personality disorders?

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, it does. Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, the lead clearly describes the article's topic. Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The article presents the CBT and DBT medications/treatments in the lead. Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? All information that is expanded upon in the actual body of the article is first talked about in the lead. Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? the lead is very concise, effective and straight to the point. Lead evaluation: Strong lead, could expand to more treatments, but is clear with the topics he does present. Content

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic? The content added is relevant to the topic of Cluster B personality disorders. Is the content added up-to-date? Yes. Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There doesn't seem like there's anything out of place. In terms of missing content, there doesn't seem like there is anything missing, however, I feel like th article should be longer. Content evaluation Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral? There aren't any opinions or biased viewpoints on the article, so the added content is neutral. Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, all sections of the article are discussed without bias. Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I would like to see more information presented about CBT and DBT medication, and if there are any more, they should be added on and expanded as well. Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No. Tone and balance evaluation: there is a good balance and tone in this article. Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? the link is the healthline organization website Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Are the sources current? Yes. Check a few links. Do they work? The links do work. Sources and references evaluation Organization

Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, the content is clear and easy to read. Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? None that I can see so far. Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Organization evaluation Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? N/A 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 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? N/A How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? N/A 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? N/A Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? N/A 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? N/A What are the strengths of the content added? N/A How can the content added be improved? N/A Overall evaluation