User:Cehlers34/User:Iveshm2648/sandbox/Cehlers34 Peer Review

Peer review
This type of injury is mostly seen in lower extremities, due to them being under constant weight-bearing (WB). From most common bones that are frequently affected by stress fractures to least are the tibia, tarsals, metatarsals (MT), fibula, femur, pelvis and spine.(This sentence is hard to read) Upper extremity stress fractures do occur, but they are uncommon. The main reason why this type of injury happens in (The) upper torso is due to muscle forces.(Such as)

The population(s) that has(have) the highest risk for stress fractures is(are) athletes and military recruits who are participating in repetitive, high intensity training. Sports and activities that have excessive, repetitive ground reaction forces have the highest incidence of stress fractures. The site at which the stress fracture occurs depends on the activity/sports that the individual participates in.

Factors like lower aerobic capacity, reduced muscle mass, lower bone mineral density, among other anatomical and hormone-related factors that puts women at a higher risk of developing stress factors than men. Women also have a two- to four-times increased risk of stress fractures when suffering from amenorrhea when compared to women who are eumenorrheic. Reduced bone heal increases the risk of stress fractures and studies has shown an inverse relationship between bone mineral density and stress fracture occurrence. This condition is most notable and commonly seen on the femoral neck

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username) Iveshm2648
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Iveshm2648/sandbox

Lead
'''Guiding questions: Im not sure if this is suppose to be an introduction? or the entire thing?'''


 * 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?

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Relatively recent
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? It does not appear so. (passively explain what GRF causes stress fractures

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, content appears to be neutral with no bias.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * 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

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? Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Some parts were more difficult to read. Wording was the biggest contributor, not information
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? some, not many
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The sections could be broken down with sub topic headers

Organization evaluation
Your are on the right track, I would just clean up the organization aspect by adding those sub topic headers.

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? Content appears current and accurate
 * How can the content added be improved? Rewording some sentences, possible adding more to the who and how.