User:Hebaenen/Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy/Avacaroline123 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? (provide username) Carriefish2021
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Carriefish2021/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Not yet
 * 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? Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is relatively brief

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes the content is relevant
 * Is the content added up-to-date? relatively up to date, it looks like the sources are from 2012-2015
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? The list of sports that cause increased risk is already in the CTE wikipedia article. Other than this the content is good.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? You could add prevalence across groups of races or sex or other descriptive characteristics. I see there are athlete and veteran groups, but not much else.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, the contribution was good at keeping a neutral stance.
 * 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? They all look reliable, however I'd make sure to include the journal title on the last source.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes. I think the review is a good source that helps bring all of the available information together in one place, however it is a little outdated from 2012.
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? I think there could be more information on marginalized individuals, but the sources do come from a diverse spectrum of authors.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? No links were provided

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? I think it is mostly well written, there are some sentences that seem incomplete or could be worded better.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? There are some spots that need commas added, maybe run your contribution through a source like grammarly to help!
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? I think the 2nd and the 4th paragraphs about personality changes and behavior could be added together!

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media Not applicable


 * 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. - Not applicable'''


 * 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?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? I think the contribution does a good job of going into further detail of what is currently mentioned in the epidemiology section of the article.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? It is very factual, not biased, and provides the reader further insight on possible factors that could increase someones chances of getting CTE.
 * How can the content added be improved? I would take out the direct quotes and instead summarize this information in your own words.