User talk:Smorri33/sandbox

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

General info
Smorri33 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Smorri33/sandbox
 * Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:

Lead
Guiding questions:

Yes The first sentence in the Lead does not provide a clear and concise explanation but rather immediately goes into other information. I would maybe move things around to provide a succinct description of the topic in relation to WWII vets. Yes! It does this well! Not that I can see. It might be a little too overly detailed. I think some of the sentences can be condensed to create a more brief summary.
 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content
Guiding questions:

Absolutely! To my knowledge, yes. Not really. There can always be more content! I'd particularly like to see more in the first-hand account section. I don't believe that veterans are a historically under-represented group but those dealing with mental illness are so I believe that it covers this.
 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:

Yes. There may have been a few instances of slight bias, but nothing that jumped out at my in particular. No. None that I am aware of. No, it all seems to be strictly factual.
 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References
Guiding questions:

Yes. Yes. Mostly, yes. Not particularly. Yes.
 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization
Guiding questions:

It’s very easy to read; the first intro paragraph has a lot of information, however, so it may be good to cut down on that a little. Not really, but I would reread it to see where you may be redundant in some areas (especially in the “prevalence” and “symptoms” area). Yes; I especially liked the organization of the personal accounts.
 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

Yes Yes Yes Yes
 * 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?

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.

Yes It definitely goes above and beyond the requirements for a dozen sources; however, the article could benefit with even more sources, such as sources on historically marginalized populations with PTSD (maybe how Black individuals were denied treatment during the Jim Crow era, even after they had served in WWII?), or with the Vietnam veterans as well. While it does include similar subjects and headings to Wikipedia’s main PTSD article, it for the most part creates original content and structure. The personal accounts and broad impacts were some of the most original parts of the article, which I enjoyed. The symptoms part of the article was similar to Wikipedia's other articles, so I would be watchful of that. Yes
 * 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:

Yes I found it interesting to read personal accounts of PTSD; it not only made it more applicable to one’s life, but it also encouraged a greater sympathy and appreciation for veterans. I also thought it was really interesting how you added content addressing familial relationships; I had never thought about that before. The new perspectives to PTSD in the article were well addressed. It would be helpful to include new perspectives (such as with marginalized groups, or the Vietnam veterans). It would also be helpful if you split up some of the paragraphs a little so as to create a greater flow, instead of having all the information chunked into one paragraph (for example, the symptoms/the intro paragraph).
 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
I thought that you did a great job in creating original content for a subject that's not usually covered as well. The layout of the article was clean, and the writing was concise. Again, the only adjustment I would make would be in defining what "After" WW2 would mean--whether it means PTSD only dealing with WW2, or PTSD all the way up from WW2 to the present.

Category:Wikipedia Student Program

Category:Wikiedu.org course templates