User:Cms1982/Cerebral infarction/ImagingMatters Peer Review

General info
Cms1982
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Cms1982/Cerebral infarction
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Cerebral infarction:
 * Cerebral infarction:

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.)

Lead: Lead is strong. It gives a nice synopsis of what a cerebral infarct is and 2 causes. Possibly add what else the article will discuss

Content: Sections are distinct and alert a reader that a new topic associated to the condition is being presented. All sections are relevant to the topic. Several references have been added that are new and within the last 4 years that have added or confirmed information as up to date. In Risk Factors category the article does note factors related to age and ethnicity but adding percentages or how that characteristic affects risk factors could make it stronger.

Tone & Balance: Written well and free from bias

Sources & References: Multiple sources cited in the article. Large date range in references with many being within the last 4 years so information appears to be up to date. Links from references that were checked do work and were from reliable, trustworthy sources.

Organization: Article is organized well into specific, defined sections. For a topic that has a lot of information available, the article is concise, but delivers good content so the reader has a greater understanding of the topic.

Images & Media: Article contains good use of images and lots of links to further information on other topics associated with the main topic. Images contain captions and appropriate citations. Good number used as to not overwhelm the reader with images.

Overall Impressions: Good additions to the original article. Adding the CT & MRI information helped complete the section on Diagnosis. Content added seems to have clarified or expanded parts of the article which added to its completeness.

~ImagingMatters