User talk:Far out mate/sandbox
Hey Far out mate, here are some suggestions I have for the article US Military Veteran Suicide. US Military Veteran Suicide, exactly as I mentioned them on the article's talk page along with my bibliography of sources.
I want to add some relevant information to this wikipedia article in the sections subheaded: causes, federal policy initiatives, and suggest an additional section on the VA's work specifically. Under causes I would add information from a recently published research book on Military Veteran psychiatric healthcare as it is related to suicide. I want to also elaborate on recent federal policy initiatives as the issue is discussed by the House of Representatives and reported in their House Hearing on Veteran and Active Duty Suicides in May 2019 and how the information in this hearing is also related to the budget and its effective or ineffective utilization in Washington. Finally, I would suggest a specific subheaded section for the VA to talk about the VA's role in suicide prevention for veterans, historically and currently.
Ritchie, Elspeth Cameron, and Maria D. Llorente. Veteran Psychiatry in the US: Optimizing Clinical Outcomes. Springer, 2019.
United States. House of Representatives. Subcommittee on National Security. Hearing on Veteran and Active Duty Suicides (Part 1) May 8, 2019. 116th Congress. 1st session. Washington: GPO, 2019.
A Consensus Study Report of the National Academies of Science, Engineering, Medicine. Evaluation of the Department of Veterans Affairs Mental Health Services. National Academies Press, 2018. Helen Pope (talk) 07:54, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Peer Review
General info Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username) Far out mate Link to draft you're reviewing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_veteran_suicide
Lead The lead is concise and informative, and did not need to be changed, following their judgement.
Content The content added was necessary, and previously missing from the article. It follows a clear timeline of events and marks the important things that occurred on a federal level, and keeps everything within scope of the titled section. I would also add more to the "Social Policy" section, by mentioning the movements and hashtags more. I would also add more to the Federal Budget section.
Tone and Balance Some of the diction used could be replaced to make the article seem more neutral, like when talking about "important laws" the words could be replaced by "impactful laws" or "pioneering laws" to be more objective. I appreciate using the words "died by" instead of "committed"; this is one example of how the article maintains a respectful tone as well, which is necessary for this sensitive subject matter.
Sources and References There are plenty of sources in this article, which appeared to be reliable as they were directly from Federal websites. There are also a good amount of sources from Military Times which seemed like a relevant and reliable source for the subject matter.
Organization This section was organized well, and the timeline made sense. I would organize the "Social Policy" section more, and generally clean it up in a more chronological fashion like the edited section, as it appears to be messy now.
Images and Media There are no images or media to be included with this subject, except perhaps any symbols of solidarity like ribbons could be added.
Overall impressions The section that was added to was done really well. The tone needs to be fixed a little bit, but it did a great job of writing about sensitive subject matter. If there is time, more could be added and organized to the "Social Policy" and "Budget" sections, in the same fashion as the "Federal Policy" section, which was done very well. Millyphilip (talk) 06:43, 18 March 2020 (UTC)