User:Kerrymonique/Spigelian hernia/Pfowler17 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? User:Kerrymonique
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Kerrymonique/Spigelian hernia

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * The content is still in the writer's sandbox.
 * 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; there is a content box.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Concise

==== Lead evaluation: The lead is good. I don't think we need the language "In simple terms," because Wiki is expected to be written in "simple terms." I'm a little confused about the last line "(4th–7th decade of life)" as it doesn't have any context -- but to be fair it was something included in the original article, so it's not this editor's language. Does it mean these hernias don't typically occur until your 40s? ====

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes; sources from recent years.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Sure, but the writer is still working on it.

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: No; given the topic of the article (a medical condition), the author doesn't seem to be persuading me to believe/think any certain way about the condition. Just a summary of facts. ====

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?

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: As stated above, all the sections make sense/are organized thoughtfully. No spelling errors. Some sentences are phrased a bit awkwardly** but overall, content is good.
''' ** "...and sometimes discomfort can be confused by its anatomical region for a peptic ulceration." '''

''' Possibly rephrase to "and sometimes, because of the location of the discomfort, doctors mistake the hernia for a peptic ulceration." -- or something of the like. '''

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?

For New Articles Only
''' 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?