User:Allig11/Sports Medicine/Eflake123 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?
 * Allig11

(provide username)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Allig11/Sports Medicine - Wikipedia
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Sports medicine - Wikipedia

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Content

All of the new content added to the article reflects the original information and the overall purpose. Each new addition appears to be up to date and still relevant to the topic, and enhances the original content of the article. The editor placed each addition in the correct spots, not interrupting the flow of the article.

Tone and Balance

Each addition to the article is presented in a neutral manor and does not give any sense of bias. Upon inspecting each addition, no section gives a stronger emotion that the other. No viewpoints are over/underrepresented, and each is presented with balance.

Sources and References

After reviewing the sources, each appears to be current and reliable to the topic. In addition, all of the links work and each source comes from a variety of authors. One recommendation I would give is to link each source to the information in the article that it came from, so the reader knows which bits of information came from which source.

Organization

I would have to say that the organization in the article is one of the key points. I really appreciate how each addition was given in accordance with the original information, creating an easy flow for the reader.

Overall Impressions

After reading the article before and after all of the additions, my peer editor did a great job at enhancing all of the information! Where information was missing or vague, they added the appropriate amount of information to make it clearer and more informative. As mentioned before, the only critique I would make is to add the citations with each bit of information, so the readers know where it came from. I really enjoyed reading this article and feel that I learned a lot!