User:Petersonjordan/Stress fractures/Petersonjordan 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)
 * Iveshm2648
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:Iveshm2648/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * The abstract at the top of the article (lead) was not updated/in the sandbox to reflect their changes.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * "Because of this mechanism, stress fractures are common overuse injuries in athletes." the group could add to the end of this phrase in the current Lead something about prevalence or other pertinent information about the epidemiology.
 * 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?
 * Detailed in a concise manner

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Could be more recent research as some is from 16 years ago
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Could be specific about what populations it is seen in (specific sports with overuse tendencies).

Content evaluation
Overall the content is good, there are places that could be more specific such as what sports this is most commonly seen in. Some of the sources could be more up to date too as one of the citations is over 16 years old.

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 overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No

Tone and balance evaluation
Overall, the content added was good in terms of tone and balance. No changes needed in this area.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * According to the trainings, all sources need to meta-analysis/systematic reviews or from text books
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * No, sources are very specific and not compilations of data
 * Are the sources current?
 * could be approved, stress injuries to bone in college athletes 2003 is pretty old content
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes they work but require access/logins

Sources and references evaluation
Sources should be changed to be meta-analysis and more recent.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The organization of the sentences makes it harder to read. It is almost like you are attempting to follow the epidemiology section of the old article - try to make it your own.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Just review how it reads - maybe read aloud.
 * Reduced bone heal increases the ___ - heals? A couple instances of this throughout the article
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * at the beginning of paragraphs introduce what you are trying to talk about - Women are more likely to have a stress fracture because of these predisposing factors...

Organization evaluation
Just take time or everyone read over it separately to best suit the grammar.

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?

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 this adds to the overall article.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The strength is the detail and improvement from the previous epidemiology section.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Make sure it isn't repetitive with any other areas of the article, like that intro (Lead) section. Make sure your grammar and sources can be adjusted accordingly as well - if you go back to the trainings it makes editing a lot easier

Overall evaluation
Just read over comments and make a couple edits - we think you are on the right track though!