User:TylerBouchard/Anterior cruciate ligament injury/Benjuckett Peer Review

Peer review
I am peer reviewing the work of TylerBouchard on the topic of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury. It can be found at User:TylerBouchard/Anterior cruciate ligament injury. The content that has been added is purely on the epidemiology of ACL injuries. The content that was added provides a greater understanding as to incidence of the injury. The current wiki page just mentions the prevalence of the injury and gives no mention as to how frequently ACL injuries actually happen. This is a great addition because its good to have an understanding of incidence to be better informed about the risk of ACL injury. I also think its good you talked about specific sports and the incidences associated with those. All the information that was added is purely factual and everything as written in a neutral tone. No part of the additional information seemed bias or suggestive toward a specific belief of practice. All information was up-to-date and from good sources, and the link to those all worked. You kept a similar structure to the current epidemiology section for ACL injuries, which had good organization, and that still comes though with your edits. Keeping the Young Athletes heading would be important to help the readers understand the slight change in subjects between the paragraphs. The third and last sentences in the first paragraph might better belong in the causes section as is. That information is important to the epidemiology of ACL injuries, but a numeric representation of those risk factors might be better. Explaining how much more likely you are to experience a ACL injury if you present those risk factors rather than just mentioning that they exist. Something I am curious about is if there is any data talking about how risk changes with age. I know you included some age information, but in much older adults, > 50, how does the risk change? Overall, the additional information is well written and really adds to the understanding of ACL injury epidemiology.

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)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:

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?

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?

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?

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?

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


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