User:Liv2020/Femoroacetabular impingement/Zkremz 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? Liv2020
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Femoroacetabular impingement

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes it does. It clearly states what the article is about.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The Lead does not describe any parts of the major sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, the information in the Lead is expanded upon well in the rest of the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? I believe the Lead is a happy medium between the two, and has the perfect amount of detail.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, the content pertains to the topic and is easy to understand.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? The sources used look to be current, and the information as well.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? The prevention section seems to be quite short for it's level of importance.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? The content was neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? I did not find evidence of bias in this article.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? The article seemed well balanced and lacked bias.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Information is cited well in this article, and reliable sources were used.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? The sources are thorough, often coming from medical journals.
 * Are the sources current? The sources are current.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? The links I checked worked.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The content is easy to read, and concise.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? I noticed a grammar error in the first sentence under the Treatment heading. There is a 'be' missing from the sentence.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The society sections seems like it could be combined into another section instead of standing alone as one, in my opinion. It could be combined into the history section.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes, the images are great tools to help understand where the hip joint is.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes, the captions are concise and easy to understand.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes, the images are neatly placed in the article.

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? Yes, there are plenty reliable sources listed.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? I would say the list is rather exhaustive and the team did a great job finding reliable sources on an array of topics within the main topic.
 * 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? The article follows the patterns well and the information is mapped out nicely.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes it does, often.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? The article looks more complete and thorough.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? It is well written and stays at a good level of informative without being too wordy and full of jargon.
 * How can the content added be improved? Adding more information to sections that are too short such as the prevention section.