User:Hebaenen/Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy/Hgeisler21 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? Carriefish2021
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Carriefish2021/Chronic traumatic encephalopathy

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? N/A the lead of the article was not edited for this assignment
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? N/A the lead of the article was not edited for this assignment
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? N/A the lead of the article was not edited for this assignment
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? N/A the lead of the article was not edited for this assignment
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? N/A the lead of the article was not edited for this assignment

Lead evaluation
N/A the lead of the article was not edited for this assignment.

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? No
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes

Content evaluation
I thought the content was well researched given the lack of information about the epidemiology of this topic. I liked how you brought in information about concussions as it could be a cause of this disease. I thought everything was well written and relevant.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * 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

Tone and balance evaluation
I thought this was well balanced. It provided enough information to the audience about the risk of this disease and how it affects people.

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
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? N/A

Sources and references evaluation
I liked the references used. I would re-organize your sources. We organized ours at the end of our submission and added footnotes at the end of each paragraph (if the paragraph was used by the same source) that connected with the source.

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? No
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

Organization evaluation
I thought everything was well organized. I would possibly put the info about concussions at the end, but where you have it is good as well.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? N/A
 * Are images well-captioned? N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A

Images and media evaluation
N/A. There were no images in this section.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The epidemiology section has more information about this disease and the relevance of this disease to people.
 * How can the content added be improved? N/A

Overall evaluation
Overall, great submission. I thought that everything was well put together. I don't have any suggestions on how to improve it besides fixing the organization of your references (explained above).