User:Omurphy5/Gunshot wound/CellFay 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? Nhooloo1 and Omurphy5
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Omurphy5/Gunshot wound

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * The Lead was not included in the sandbox draft and thus was not updated with the peers' additional information.
 * 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
Needs to be added to the sandbox and revised.

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
The content is relevant. It seems that only particular sections are being added/edited, but all content on the sandbox page is highly relevant to gunshot wounds. The content may or may not be up-to-date. A quick scan of the sources show that the publication date/last update ranges from 1989 to 2016. There are no sources to verify that the information from these sources are still viable today. The diagnosis section confuses me since it is a lot shorter than in the original article. I'm unsure if more content will be added or if a mass deletion of information is part of the edits.

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
The Long Term Effects and Diagnosis content is presented in a neutral tone. However, when mentioning the gun control controversy, the presentation is fairly objective but I personally feel there is are not enough sources or cited information under this section to take a perspective. Since the issue is so controversial, there may be other steps that need to be taken to include this section.

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
Each section is backed up with a source, but, again, the range of publication date for these sources is a bit too wide, so the reliability is more questionable. The sources themselves are all reliably sourced and thoroughly written. The links all work.

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 organization is confusing. The lead was not added; in fact, the original article was not pasted in, so it's hard to tell how the edits are meant to be integrated. The content was broken down into well-thought-out sections. The writing, though without grammar or spelling issues, switches between descriptive fragments and full sentences.

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
There are no images or media. Their addition may be helpful.

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?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
This is a good start. The sections are all there, and the tone is pretty neutral. The organization could be clearer and the writing style could be revised. Also, more diverse and a greater quantity of information from more recent sources may need to be added as this article has been rated high-importance in at least two WikiProjects.