User:Jlkessle/Sprain/Mizrebel83 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? Jlkessle
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Sprain

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
-Topic of article stated in introductory sentence, though not concise/direct

-Summarizes most major points, but misses one or more important aspects

-Includes some information not present in body of the article (Context)

''It was very helpful including the sentence about a strain (I especially like the wording of “equivalent injury”). I think a lot of people confuse these two and so being able to know the difference on one page (rather than having to compare it to another Wikipedia injury) provides clarification and education.''

''You could consider adding in elements from each section (e.g. S/S), but it also probably isn’t necessary since the article isn’t overly lengthy. You might want to add a “Mechanism” section between Causes and Diagnosis. This would be within the scope of normal WikiMed convention and would allow for details about pathophysiology. This would also fix the problem of some information being contained within the introductory section that isn’t replicated anywhere else (e.g. collagen fibers, proprioception). In addition, the intro states that sprains occur most commonly at the ankle and wrist but the wrist is lumped in with “fingers” in the “Joints involved” section. Plus, the knee seems overly represented below whereas it is omitted from the intro.''

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
-Content covers information relevant to topic; links to relevant articles for background

-Most gaps are filled

''Perhaps it is too intuitive, but you could consider expanding on “high-intensity contact sports” (e.g. changing it to full-contact sports which would allow you to link to the sub-heading within the  Contact sport entry). You could link Gamekeeper’s thumb to its own Wikipedia entry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulnar_collateral_ligament_injury_of_the_thumb). Technically, if it is the same injury as skier’s thumb just with a difference of acuity, should these be lumped together rather than separate entries under “Joints Involved.” Although not really a medical term, the bullet point on “whiplash” could be linked to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiplash_(medicine).''

''Otherwise, it was very helpful having the joints as individual bullet points with sub-sections for particular injuries. This made for a logical flow rather than having them in standard paragraph format. I really liked separating out conservative measures from functional rehabilitation under Treatment. It was a nice easy-to-understand progression from common interventions to escalated management. (Grammar question: should the sentence that follows “Protect” read “increased risk”? Does ace-wrap need capitalized (ACE) since it is a brand (+/- ™)?''

Age is listed as a risk factor in the caption under the image, but not as a risk factor in the body of the text.

''I looked at a few older versions of the article from earlier this year to see the changes implemented. The introduction has certainly been improved and numerous citations have been added. The “Joints involved” section has been expanded. In general I think the additional information is wonderful, though see a bit of repetitiveness of phrasing.''

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
-Article presents balanced coverage without favoring one side unduly

-Tone is neutral and appropriate for an encyclopedia audience

''Shameless specialty promotion: you could consider putting “Emergency Medicine” in the Specialty list under that image. :)''

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
-A few statements at the end of some paragraphs have unclear sourcing

-Most sources are the best available, are appropriate for the discipline

-Most references are fairly complete, but some are missing something

''There are areas that need improvement on citations (e.g. Joints Involved), but for the most part citations seem clear. The references used are appropriate.''

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
-Clear organization of heading and subheadings; appropriate transitions and clear grammar

-Provides plain language explanations for most medical or technical terminology

-Sections added are comprehensive and do not duplicate other sections

-Article covers the topic in organized, logical fashion

There is some medical jargon, but I don’t know whether it is ubiquitous enough to stand or should be replaced.

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
-Images improve the reader's understanding of the topic; captions are clear and concise

For New Articles Only (Not applicable)
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?

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
''Tremendous work! I had no idea how incomplete this entry was 6-12 months ago and you’ve really helped expand the understanding of this topic for the general public. Especially given the pervasive nature of this medical condition, you are certainly contributing to the fund of knowledge. People will hopefully feel more educated and empowered if they are either curious about this topic, or experience/know someone who has a sprain.''