User:Marksmkn3714/Second-impact syndrome/Barnor Senrab 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? Marksmkn3714(provide username)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Marksmkn3714/Second-impact syndrome

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? I think so. They discussed the controversy over second-impact syndrome, so the lead doesn't really need to be updated.
 * 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? N/A
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Yes

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes; it gives context to the reporting and updates statistics.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes; as of 2014.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes; directly talks about the controversy and how that can skew reporting.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Neither. Seems well represented.
 * 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? Yes; 4 new sources of data that is secondary source material.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes.
 * Are the sources current? Yes; some even from 2020.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? From what I could learn, yes.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes. I checked all of them and they work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? There are a few colloquial sayings such as "at best." Other than that, everything seemed fine with grammar and spelling.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? NA
 * Are images well-captioned? NA
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? NA
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? NA

For New Articles Only
'''If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above. NA'''


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject? na
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? na
 * 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? na
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? na

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes. I think it adds a lot of nice context.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? This adds contextualization and discusses the controversy of second impact syndrome.
 * How can the content added be improved? I think that making the writing sound more scientific and less colloquial would be the only improvement.