User:Novafields/Alternating electric field therapy/Jwiggler Peer Review

Peer Review 1: (I didn't know where the instructions were at the time so this is what I added)

Correct me if I am wrong, but it looks like you are trying to add information to the beginning of the article? If that is the case it looks like you are presenting a lot of good information, but I think some of the order of the information should be reconsidered. I think the current intro of the article (posted on wikipedia) does a good job of quickly summarizing the topic. Your additions seem valuable, but I think they would be better under a separate heading after the intro. It looks good though! Great job!

Whose work are you reviewing?
Novafields

Link to draft you're reviewing

 * User:Novafields/Alternating electric field therapy

Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

 * Alternating electric field therapy

Notes on your ideas for article changes:
I think you have some really great changes that you are adding! I didn't really understand the mechanism when I read through the original article, so your added section is appreciated. At first, the page reminded me of some schmuck waving magents over your body to cure a disease... but your added section explains a lot more on the physiological level.

Have you found a good picture to add to the article? Perhaps you could consider adding a picture of the device near the top or some figure that shows the process of the therapy? Either of those might help people visualize it better.

Could you help me understand better what you mean at the top about changing the lead? Do you mean adding a portion elsewhere in the article or just explaining the mechanism a little more?

Notes on the article itself:
I think the article does a pretty good job at keeping a neutral tone. It only used data to present the efficacy of this treatment. I didn't feel like the article was trying to convince me one way or the other. I would definitely try and keep that tone when you make the "lead portion." Your other edits have a good tone so far.

I feel like the side effects part doesn't explain much. It could definitely explain better what the side effects are, how common they are, and how severe they are.

I'm confused by the heading "society and culture." I feel like that title doesn't match the content of the paragraphs below.

Questions
Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?

- Nothing felt particularly distracting

Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

- it felt neutral

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

- I think there needs to be more info for the side effects.

Check the citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?

- 30. FDA approves expanded indication for medical device to treat a form of brain cancer. Oct 2015 (this citation is broken)

- 16. Kirson, Eilon D.; Gurvich, Zoya; Schneiderman, Rosa; Dekel, Erez; Itzhaki, Aviran; Wasserman, Yoram; Schatzberger, Rachel; Palti, Yoram (1 May 2004). "Disruption of Cancer Cell Replication by Alternating Electric Fields". Cancer Research. 64 (9): 3288–3295. doi:10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-04-0083. PMID 15126372. (this citation is broken as well)

Is each fact supported by an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?

- good references are used

Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that should be added?

- I think you are already adding a lot of good details.