User:Japown/Refractive error/Hopper1828 Peer Review

General info
Japown
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Refractive error
 * User:Japown/Refractive error/Bibliography
 * User:Japown/Refractive error
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Refractive error

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.

Lead
 * For the lead section, very minimal editing was done so far. A few more grammatical changes could be made (the first sentence of the second paragraph seems like it could be reworded), but otherwise, his suggested workplan and the changes he has made seem appropriate to leave it mostly as is.

Content


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? - Yes. You showed a very focused and well-reasoned work-plan that involved making some sections more coherent while adding a few sections (such as normal refraction) in plain English.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? - Recent sources were used throughout, including comprehensive review articles from reliable and up-to-date sources.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? - All the content added seems appropriate for this article. Normal refraction was discussed in brief to help better understand the classifications of errors. Error types were better grouped and explained. Screening was covered succinctly and objectively. Everything added seems to fit within the confines of your workplan.

Tone and Balance


 * Is the content added neutral? - Everything that I have read that Japown added is in neutral voice. There are no personal suggestions or implied connections. The few places that discuss recommendations are not focused on convincing but just detailing what the standardized bodies focused on this subject current recommend, along with a brief explanation why (that typically children do not recognize or bring up their blurry vision).
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?: No, I would say nothing in this article that he wrote is written in an attempt to convince or lead to a specific viewpoint, only to simplify existing knowledge and condense it into Wikipedia format.

Sources and References


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? - Everything is cited to a reliable source. Checking through the sources, they are all reliable and recent.


 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, including multiple reviews and a Cochrane review.
 * Are the sources current? - All dates are 2016 or after as far as I can find. This seems appropriately recent and updated.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? These come from different journals with different focuses, and I do not see any authors repeated in my review.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) - I do not see any less valuable source cited in any of the sections he edited. All come from academic sources and are focused on guidelines and review of knowledge, not primary research.

Organization


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes it easy to read, with varied sentence structure and good grammar, as well as explanations for jargon whenever appropriate.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? The opening part of each description of refractory error categories is punctuated with a period, but each are phrases, not sentences. This could be reworded to not have the colon there, and instead write "Presbyopia occurs when the flexibility of the lens declines, typically due to age." This could still be done as a bulleted list but written as sentences, instead of phrases.


 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? - Organization is one of the strengths of the article. The updated organization of the refraction error categories is very clear and concise, and the sections added are in their appropriate place, with good headings, and of reasonable lengths.

Overall impressions


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?/How can the content added be improved? - Overall, I think the improvements help quite improve the article quite a bit. You've added high value citations and reorganized an important section well. The added sections provide valuable context to refraction errors. I think you could make a few grammatical improvements, but what you have done so far is high quality work and improves the article. Beyond that, if you come up with any further improvements to the section on contact lenses as your work-plan and bibliography, those could be welcome additions. But your work so far is well-sourced, well-organized, appropriately neutral and written to an appropriate education level.

Additional Questions


 * Does your peer have 5-7 reliable sources? You have added at least that many high quality, recent sources.
 * Does the topic link in some way to our course material? This topic fits very well into the overall goal of the MedicalWiki course - finding a important page relevant to medicine and the student's area of interest that needs further improvement.