User:Betheyr/Uta Frith/TeelHSCI 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? Betheyr
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Betheyr/new sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation:
Although the proposed additions to the lead are written in sentence fragments, the content suggested is quality. It does a good job of highlighting important contributions and makes sense to include in a lead/overview type scenario.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation:
The proposed content is relevant. The content is up to date. The content belongs as it does not stray off-topic.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation:
The proposed contributions to the article maintain a neutral tone. The language does not reveal a bias and there is not a position being persuaded for or against.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


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

Sources and references evaluation:
The sources and references provided are reputable. Since the information being edited is regarding a scientist it makes sense and is appropriate that many of the sources and references are from medical journals or institutions. The links are functioning correctly.

Organization
Guiding questions:


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

Organization evaluation:
Since some of the content is written in sentence fragments similar to a note-taking form, a proper evaluation of the organization cannot be performed. It is organized in the sense that it is clear what sections are being discussed or contributed to. There were no spelling errors detected.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


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

Images and media evaluation:
The user is not using images or media to contribute to this article.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation:
The content added adds to the overall quality of the article. Much of the strength of the content stems from the fact the information is from reputable sources. The variety of the sections being contributed to also makes for a welcome addition as the user has decided to add to six different sections.