User:Mcampbell14/ADHD/Bilalabualrub 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? Mcampbell14
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? no
 * 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
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? no
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? it is quite informative, but concise given how much information there is on this topic

Lead evaluation
The lead is a strong introduction to ADHD. It outlines what ADHD is, what is known/unknown to cause it, epidemiology, prognosis, and other important aspects of a disease process.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? fairly, references used were published within the last 5 years
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? no

Content evaluation
The article already has a plethora of relevant content, but the additions made are applicable and supportive

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 over represented, or underrepresented? no, facts were neutrally presented throughout the article
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? no, the additions are simply of study findings

Tone and balance evaluation
The tone is very neutral and focused on the presentation of findings from reputable sources

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? yes
 * Are the sources current? fairly, published within the last 5 years
 * Check a few links. Do they work? yes

Sources and references evaluation
References are solid and links work

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? yes it is very well organized
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? no
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? yes

Organization evaluation
The organization is good, the article has good flow, and it is easy to read

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


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

Images and media evaluation
N/A

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? N/A
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? N/A
 * 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? N/A
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? N/A

New Article Evaluation
N/A

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? yes, it has added additonal information that is supportive and relevant to the topics covered about ADHD
 * What are the strengths of the content added? the additions are empirically supportive of two different sections of the article
 * How can the content added be improved? there could be more of it, the current quality is already good

Overall evaluation
-The article is very well developed, so I could see how it is difficult to add more meaningful content, but the additions made are good improvements to the article so far

- good job on directly referring relevant study results to main topics in the article, simple and effective