User:Benjuckett/Iliotibial band syndrome/Ebaum531 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

 * Whose work are you reviewing? Benjuckett
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Benjuckett/Iliotibial band syndrome

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise

Lead evaluation:
Very well done to show the pertinent information people are more commonly looking for, a brief overview of the topic. What it is caused by and what activities people are doing to cause the problem.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, it is relating to the different treatments for ITBS and who is most at risk.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Most of the sources are recent. Some sources are older, one specifically from 1989, and the other from 1991.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? None that I am aware.

Content evaluation
The content added seems to increase the knowledge and understanding of ITBS. Most sources are up to date, but sometimes it is difficult to find a recent source repeating already known or established information.

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

Tone and balance evaluation
The tone is neutral and there is no over or under represented viewpoints, just facts.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
 * Are the sources current? Most are current
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Sources and references evaluation
The sources work and are mostly current. There are a few sources that are older, one specifically from 1989, and the other from 1991. Sometimes it is difficult to find a recent source repeating already known or established information, so its understandable for them to be older.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Most of it seems alright.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Some grammatical errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

Organization evaluation
I think you need to read over the Epidemiology section, remember that what audience we are catering to. We don't want to make the audience confused with some of the larger words, it also makes it seem like you didn't summarize what you learned from the article in your own words. The other sections are well written and understandable. Very good job with the organization.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media -- None added


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? N/A
 * Are images well-captioned? N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A

Images and media evaluation
N/A

For New Articles Only --N/A
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? N/A
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? N/A
 * 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? N/A
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? N/A

New Article Evaluation
N/A

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Solid information was added, completed the page. Well rounded information.
 * How can the content added be improved? Remember audience catering to and make the epidemiology section more understandable.

Overall evaluation
Over all well done just fix up the Epidemiology section.