User:Msdv613/Autism—Tics, AD/HD, and other Comorbities/Iparr011 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? Msdv613
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Autism—Tics, AD/HD, and other Comorbities

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
Considering the article is a stub so far, there is not much of a lead. On the bright side, the first paragraph serves as a pretty good introduction to the concept, and what little was added to it helps. Besides that, the article would need way more content before a proper lead can be discussed.

Content
Guiding questions:


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

Content evaluation
What little content there is, and was added, is relevant and up-to-date. But there is still a lot missing. You could add specific examples of when this tool has been successfully used in the past. Similarly, you could expand on its origins, as well as what the "twenty modules" the A—TAC is organized into are. Similarly, while the article claims that the questions on the interview include "'almost verbatim' the characteristics listed in the DSM-IV diagnostic", you could elaborate what these questions even are and why they are so similar.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
I see no bias here. Regarding underrepresented points, I think the stuff I mentioned last question qualifies, but that's more for the sake of expanding the article.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


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

Sources and references evaluation
The content we do have, although small, is properly backed up by reliable and current sources. No statement lacks a citation, and the links work. That being said, most sources come from the same website, which further gives the impression more diverse research is necessary on this topic.

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?

Organization evaluation
The added content is well-written, and contains no grammatical/spelling errors that I've noticed. I cannot say the same for organization, however, as barely anything was added; or is there to begin with.

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


 * 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?

Images and media evaluation
No images. Granted, I have no idea what images you could add here.

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?

New Article Evaluation
Not a new article, but I can at least say it meets notability requirements (although a lack of variety in the sources may be necessary). Similarly, there's plenty of sources for how short the article is, and it includes links to other articles. I can't say the same for patterns, since, again, it's a very short article.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
Not much was added, and some of it was a removed, but when the article is this short any contributions matter. If one wishes to really improve this article, however, a lot of new content would be necessary, in order to expand the article and give it a proper structure more in line with other articles.