User:Jtree7/Hyperacusis/CEROES Peer Review

General info
Jtree7
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://docs.google.com/document/d/13lelWaJY1Pr2SDsI6HB-eKfHWNiLkdl9ilAsle8CXJE/edit:
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Hyperacusis:

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? --> yes, added a bit more on prevalence
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? --> could be a little more specific (see suggestions in google doc)
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? --> missing any mention of causes of the condition or "treatment" options (see doc)
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? --> weirdly focuses on Musician Jason DiEmilio? not sure why
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? --> starts out concise but then becomes a little overly detailed

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? --> absolutely
 * Is the content added up-to-date? --> yes; very recent sources
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? --> yes; student author has plans to add them
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? --> n/a

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? --> yuppppp (even though the talk page has strong opinions on treatment options, or lack thereof)
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? --> not that I noticed (excluding the talk page lol)
 * 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? --> nope!

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? --> Yes
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) --> yup :)
 * 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? --> uhhhhhhh how am I supposed to know this
 * 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.) --> my preliminary PubMed search found me jack squat, so no obvious "better" sources
 * Check a few links. Do they work? --> yupppp

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? --> absolutely
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? --> nope!
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? --> methinks yes

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media --> N/A


 * 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 for a new article, consider the following in addition to the above. --> N/A


 * 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? --> yes! the content that has been added and the content that will be added was definitely important information that was missing from the article
 * What are the strengths of the content added? --> well written, very up-to-date research
 * How can the content added be improved? --> not sure, but adding more sources is never a bad idea