User:DiefeiC/Hearing loss/Deanatrimble 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? DiefeiC
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Hearing Loss

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
N/A, no changes made to the lead.

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
All content added to this article is relevant to the topic and up to date. All sections added for age-related hearing loss and co-morbidity are relevant and fit properly in the article. The added sub-sections encompass the overall section well, and nothing appears to be missing and nothing appears to not belong.

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 overall tone of these added sections was neutral, and none of the sections felt biased towards any particular position. The references used for the meta-analyses and systematic reviews include global data which is important for representation in the article (i.e., not just limited to the United States). There does not appear to be any attempt at persuasion in the given sections.

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:
Overall, the sources and references used in the sections added to this article are in good standing. Every statement written was backed up by reliable sources mentioned in the reference section. Each source used was appropriate for Wikipedia as they were systematic and/or literature reviews that were not dependent upon original research. The sources generally come from the last ten years, with a few exceptions of some systematic reviews from 2003, however, those reviews from 2003 may be the most recent reviews available for the topic. All links provided in the resources section directed to their proper destination.

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
The organization of the sections added to this article were clear, concise, and easy to read for both a lay and more advanced audience. Overall the spelling and grammar were problem-free with the exception of a sentence in the falls section: "There are several hypothesis..." should be changed to "There are several hypothes es ..." to account for the plural form of "hypothesis". Aside from this, the rest of the sections read well. The break down of sections was appropriate and clear and each section was relevant to the topic.

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
N/A, no images or media added.

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, this is not a new 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
Overall, the added sections to this article were done very well. The added section to describe co-morbidities for age-related hearing loss improved the article by adding more depth of content, and adds to the completeness of the article. The added sections are strong in every category, as each section is relevant, neutral in tone, representative, well-organized, and uses reliable and appropriate sources per Wikipedia guidelines that are up to date. The only are that needs improvement is updating the one sentence to the plural form of "hypothesis" to "hypotheses" mentioned in the above section of feedback. The added sections are very well done overall, great work!