User:Maxmattaaa/User:Maxmattaaa/Concussions in American football/Bharp14 Peer Review

General info
Max Matta
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Maxmattaaa/Concussions in American football
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Concussions in American football
 * Concussions in American football

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead in:

What the article does well is providing examples from studies of what is being talked about in the section. What impressed me was how well the author stated how concussions affect football players. The phrase that describes the subject in a clear way is "NFL Concussions have always been a big issue but now there is backlash because of all the former players experiencing things due to these concussions". The change I would suggest to the author is to limit the use of words like CTE. I'm not sure what a CTE is, I would put the actual word in the writing and put CTE in parenthesis. This change would make an improvement to the article by making it easier for us to read if we don't know medical terms like that. The most important thing that the article can do to improve it is to state who said these things instead of phrases like in this article, etc. What I noticed that I am going to use in my article is putting more statics in.

Article Lead Section:

Yes, I get the importance of the topic by looking at the lead it's to see how concussions affect football players. Yes, the lead reflects the information in the article. No, the lead gives information to all the sections of the article and doesn't have information that is redundant or missing.

Structure:

The information that is in the section makes sense for where it was put. I think if you rearrange the order by putting NFL Concussions first, then Effects of Concussions, and then finally Helmets to help protect the players. This would make sense because it explains how concussions are a serious issue in the NFL, then you explain the effect it has on the players, and then finally a solution to the problem. All the sections have enough information about the importance of the subject, and none of the sections in the article seem unnecessary or have information that is off-topic. Yes, the article reflects all the perspectives represented in the published literature and there aren't any significant viewpoints left out. No the article doesn't draw conclusions or try to persuade the reader to take a specific viewpoint on the topic.

Neutral Content:

Yes, the perspective of the author is a neutral tone. There are no words or phrases that don't feel neutral and the author is trying to persuade the reader a certain way. Yes, the article makes claims on behalf of unnamed people by saying things like "The article", "The article stated", "This journal", "Studies", and "Even in this article they state". Instead of saying those phrases I would recommend saying the last name of the author that wrote the article or the name of the journal like for example, ____reports ".....". No, I don't feel the article focuses too much on negative or positive information.

Reliable Sources:

Most statements in the article are connected to a reliable source like journals. Each of the sources is used once, and the statements are attributed to just one source so there is no unbalance in the article. There are no unsourced statements in this article or statements that I can't find stated in the references.

Reviewer Reflection:

Based on this review the three revisions I am adding to my own article are more details, more examples related to what I am saying, and more statistics.