User:Crennels/Osteopenia/Jammars 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? Crennels
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * Osteopenia

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * I think it's an excellent overall summary of the most salient points about osteopenia
 * You could add one sentence on each of the subheadings, to make the lede more of an overall summary of the article
 * 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?
 * No, see above comment
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes, the number of people with osteopenia. I'm not sure where in the article this would go--maybe at some point a section on epidemiology could be added?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Concise!

Lead evaluation
See bullet points above. I think it's a wonderful concise summary of what osteopenia is, but could include a bit more about the other points you've added to the article around risk factors, etc.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * The article says "an incomplete list of risk factors" this leaves me wondering what is missing. Is there a rationale for what risk factors you included?
 * I may add a one-sentence description of female athlete triad syndrome under risk factors? Might be nice to not have to click out to learn about that, without focusing on it too much.
 * Define DXA scanning at first mention under "Screening and diagnosis"
 * Should USPTF (United States preventive task force) actualy be USP S TF (United States Preventive Services Task Force)? https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/
 * Period at the end of "The DXA scanner evaluates bone mineral density" paragraph (which maybe is repetitive with the sentence that starts "A common test for bone mineral density..."
 * "of note, medical conditions can affect absorption of calcium" consider includeinga couple of medical conditions that do this?
 * Link to Hormone Replacement Therapy article for Estrogen replacement under "Prevention"
 * Are there other ways in which Osteopenia is managed, other than pharmaceutical treatment? E.g. additional screening? Counseling? If so, these may be worth mentioning in a section on management which may also include pharmaceutical treatment.

Content evaluation
See bullet points above

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Yes
 * 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?
 * Yes
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Some, which I've noted elsewhere in this review
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * I might move the sentence "A common test for bone mineral density..." to the top of the Screening section
 * Move all citations to the ends of the sentences--I find them distracting when they're mid-sentence.

Organization evaluation
See above

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?

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

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 definitely! I learned a lot from reading it, and it looks from the track changes like a lot of it is new content!
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * Well-organized risk factors
 * Excellent explanation of changes in bone density with age in the context of osteopenia prevention.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Mostly organization, as I've mentioned above. It would be nice to add a little more on non-pharmaceutical management of osteopenia, if time allows.

Overall evaluation
Great work!