User:TylerBouchard/Anterior cruciate ligament injury/Ruhdekn3086 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? TylerBouchard
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:TylerBouchard/Anterior cruciate ligament injury

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Was not updated, but still reflects the content.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, describes topic.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes, all sections are included and described.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, everything is expanded upon in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise, good amount of information, clearly organized.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?Yes, the information added is relevant to the topic of ACL injury.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, sources come from newer articles and is relevant to how ACL injuries are taken care of today.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Is there any other risk factors that could lead to this injury, or is there ways this dynamic valgus movement could affect other structures in the area?

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? The information added does sound neutral and is consistent throughout the epidemiology section.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?No, from reading the article’s added content there is nothing that overly stuck out in my opinion.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Maybe try to add more information about age (collegiate and non-athletic population) and their risk for ACL injuries.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, I do not believe the information added is in favor of one position or another.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, all from peer review journals.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, all the sources used support the evidence of the epidemiology in ACL injuries.
 * Are the sources current? Yes, all sources but one are from the 2000’s.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, the sources linked do work properly.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes I think is was easy to read, and understand.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Not that was noticed.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, organized well, flows well.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No images have been added to the article.
 * Are images well-captioned? No images have been added.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? No images have been added.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? No images have been added.

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? Yes, I do believe that the epidemiology section has been made stronger with the information that has been added.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Provides statistics and incidence rates of ACL injuries.
 * How can the content added be improved? Make the sentences flow more together, seems a little choppy during some parts of the section.

evaluation
Overall, the information and evidence that has been added gives the article of ACL injuries more strength and provides a more meaningful reading. There is lots of information about the athletic population, but I would try to see if information about the non-athletic population could be added to this section.