Wikipedia:Peer review/Veterans benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder in the United States/archive1

Veterans benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder in the United States
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to submit it for Good Article status again. I did so in 2015 but it was not accepted for some good reasons. We (myself and other editors) have improved the article over the last four years and I think it's approaching GA, although not quite there yet. In addition to problems I don't see (unknown unknowns), here are some areas that I think would benefit from improvement:
 * Organization - I've tried to improve the articles organizational structure in recent weeks, but I think "fresh eyes" will help because it still doesn't "seem right" to me.
 * References - I had added some references that, in retrospect, didn't meet Wikipedia standards for reliable sources. I have endeavored to remove such citations, but I probably missed a couple (or more).
 * I cited an article I wrote with a colleague that was published in a peer-reviewed academic journal. (Cites: cite_note-Worthen_Moering_2011-39-0, cite_note-116, & cite_note-123.) It remains the only peer-reviewed article written on the topic, and is not primary research. Naturally, I am open to feedback and will defer to recommendations by reviewers. (added on 3 Oct 2019 @ 06:17 UTC)
 * The 2015 GA reviewer commented that the article read a bit too much as a "How to" piece, which I think was accurate. I'm a psychologist who works with U.S. military veterans and my "helper" orientation swayed me toward the "Hot to" direction. (I realize that now; I didn't see it before.) I've sought to remove "How to" content, but see what you think as my implicit bias no doubt still affects my perception in this regard.
 * In my personal and professional life I am both a passionate advocate for helping veterans, given how much they have sacrificed to protect the rest of us, but I'm also an outspoken critic of some VA policies & procedures. I have worked really hard to include only balanced, objective, relevant, and well-sourced encyclopedic information. At the same time, that goal remains an aspirational one in my mind, i.e., I will never achieve it perfectly. So please look for any sections, statements, arguments, etc., that are incomplete, unbalanced (potentially biased), not very relevant, or lacking reliable references.
 * Please see the 2015 GA review for helpful feedback from the reviewers. (added on 3 Oct 2019 @ 06:22 UTC)

- Note: I will be coming back to this within the next 24 hours and will add wikilinks to the 2015 GA review and some other details I may have left out. (strikeout added on 3 Oct 2019 @ 06:04 UTC)

Thank you very much! - Mark D Worthen PsyD  (talk)  (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 19:42, 2 October 2019 (UTC)