User:Mcampbell14/ADHD/Roopeterson 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? (provide username) Mariah Campbell -Mcampbell14
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Mcampbell14/ADHD/Roopeterson_Peer_Review&veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_peer_review&redirect=no

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?no
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?no
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?no
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?no

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date?yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? yes

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? no, all from a neutral point of view.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? no
 * 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 all content is reliable
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? yes
 * Are the sources current? yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? yes

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?

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media:no images added


 * 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? I believe with the new information that my peer inputting into the article is relevant and sufficient enough to make the article better. But, I would recommend adding more souses and research.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Discussing how restless leg syndrome, sleep apnea and other sleep disorders are higher in children with ADHD  It builds more support for the article to be reliable.
 * How can the content added be improved? adding more information. For your beginning sentence you Live post you put DHD is divided into three subtypes: predominantly inattentive, predominantly hyperactive-impulsive, and combined type. I would recommend expanding on that that.

Overall evaluation
So far really good examples and good use of background information. But, it could use more information to strengthen the article. One thing I would recommend is how you are going to integrate some of the information you have into your article. overall it's a start to good article.