User:Ellyse w/Migraines/Vmae6172 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Ellyse w


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ellyse%20w/Migraines?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Migraine

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead

Basically, the lead is good. It provides the reader with all of the important, necessary information they need to know about the topic of migraines. It has an introductory sentence that hooks the reader, as well as a brief description. For the most part, the lead is concise. I would suggest a three rewordings of some sentences to improve the flow of the section. The first being "The pain is generally made worse by physical activity ...", consider changing it to "In general, physical activity during an attack worsens the pain". For the second section, "Up to one-third of people affected have aura ...", consider changing it to "Up to one-third of people impacted by migraines have aura, which is a short period of visual disturbance signalling the beginning stages of a headache. Occasionally, auras can occur with little-to-no headache following". Lastly, regarding "The underlying mechanisms are not fully known ...", consider combining the sentences to form "The underlying mechanisms are not fully known, however, they are believed to involve the nerves and blood vessels of the brain".

Content

The content is great. There is a lot of insight about what a migraine is, signs and symptoms, different classifications of migraines, causes, pathophysiology, so on so forth. There are a few spelling, grammatical and flow errors throughout the article (e.g. "aura" at the start of the "Aura phase" section isn't capitalized, some nouns should be plurals), so keep an eye out for these errors. The content is up to date and nothing feels like it's out of place. The first picture used in the article is a great one. Also, the "Antiemetics" section is blank.

Tone + Balance

Great job on the tone and balance. The content added seems neutral to me, as there are not any sways towards one side or the other. There are no claims made that appear heavily biased. There is a good balance between academic research articles and academic websites being used for your research/facts.

Sources + References

All the new content included in this article is backed up with reliable secondary sources of information. The resources from the new content are recent, with the oldest being from 2019, which is fantastic. The sources are thorough as they relate to the topic by talking about potential prevention mechanisms and gender dependency. You used quite a few research articles which personally, I believe is great (always nice to see what current research is saying). They all seemed to be referenced correctly (at least to me). For next steps, it would be better to find some current research on other sections of the article, like epidemiology, for example, since the data there was obtained in 2004. Again, watch out for typos and grammatical errors in this section.