User:ClaudiaBecker/Hysteria/7eblake Peer Review

Peer review

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

General info

• ClaudiaBecker
• Link to draft you're reviewing: User:ClaudiaBecker/sandbox

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
  • Yes! However I believe "Hysteria" is a brand new page on Wikipedia, so the Lead did not need to be updated. Claudia wrote all of it herself.
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
  • Yes, but it might be helpful to include a bit more information about how Hysteria was classified in the DSM.
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
  • Not explicitly. Maybe outline your sub-sections more explicitly in the lead section.
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
  • No.
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
  • It's very concise - good job!

Lead evaluation

To me, it reads well and serves as a solid introduction to your article. The only thing I would change is your use of quotations for the dictionary definition of hysteria. I'm pretty sure that you aren't allowed to use quotations on a wikipedia article, even if it's cited (see: "copyright and plagiarism" section of the "Plagiarism" wikipedia module).

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic?
  • Yes!
• Is the content added up-to-date?
  • I think it could be further updated. The article mentions that hysteria was removed from the DSM in 1980, but doesn't provide additional information about why. I think it could be worth adding information about hysteria to fill in the gap between Freud and removal from the DSM.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
  • As I mentioned in the previous bullet, I think more recent content is missing. But all the content on the article belongs!

Content evaluation

The current content is strong, but the overall article would be stronger if additional, updated, information was added.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral?
  • Yes!
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
  • No.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
  • No.
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
  • No, the information is presented as informative and unbiased.

Tone and balance evaluation

Very balanced - great job!

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
  • No, I don't see any references.
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
  • I don't see any references so I'm not sure.
• Are the sources current?
  • Not sure.
• Check a few links. Do they work?
  • The article is not linked to other pages.

Sources and references evaluation

I'm sure you have references, but I don't see any citations or a reference section in your sandbox. Make sure to include these before you publish your final version. Most everything should be cited, and the references section should go at the very bottom of your page. It also might be helpful to add some hyperlinks to your page so that it's more discoverable. For example, you could add a hyperlink to Freud's name.

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?
  • I found a couple sentences where words were either omitted or repeated.
    • "the patient must relive through the experiences through imagination" --> I think the first "through" should probably be deleted.
    • "included in their definition of hysteria the inability to bear children or the failure to marry" --> I think there should probably be a subject before "included." Maybe use "they"?
  • Just carefully re-read your article and you should be good! There were definitely no glaring grammatical or spelling errors.
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
  • Yes!

Organization evaluation

Overall, the organization is pretty good!

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
  • Yes!
• Are images well-captioned?
  • Yes!
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
  • I was only able to find the image you used for Sigmund Freud on search.creativecommons.org, the website our wikipedia modules recommend for finding images that adhere to copyright regulations. That doesn't necessarily mean that your other images don't adhere to the regulations, but be sure to go back and read the wikipedia module called "contributing images and media files" to double check.
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
  • Yes!

Images and media evaluation

I like the images you used for your article! Just double check that they adhere to the copyright regulations.

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?
  • I'm sure it does, but your references aren't listed on your sandbox so I'm not positive.
• How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
  • Once again, your references aren't listed on your sandbox so I'm not positive.
• 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?
  • No, but I definitely think there are areas where it could link to other articles. I suggest adding some hyperlinks to your article.

New Article Evaluation

This article seems like a notable wikipedia contribution, but it's hard to tell for sure without seeing your references.

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
  • I believe this is a new article, so your changes haven't improved a pre-existing article. However, I think Hysteria is an interesting and important subject. I think this article has improved the overall breadth of wikipedia topics.
• What are the strengths of the content added?
  • Strong and informative lead, extensive list of symptoms, good historical background.
• How can the content added be improved?
  • Add references, update content to include more recent information about hysteria, add hyperlinks to make the article more discoverable.

Overall evaluation

I think this is a strong start for your article. I enjoyed reading it and learning about hysteria. It's really important to add a reference section, but after doing that and including a bit more updated information on the topic, I think you will be in a good position to publish your article. Good job!