User:Zinger94/Hyperglycemia/Iggie7 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)
 * Zinger94
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Zinger94/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * No
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * n/a
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * n/a
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * n/a
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * n/a

Lead evaluation
The lead was not edited in the sandbox. In the original article, I feel like the lead could be pared down a little to remove the specific jargon that is mentioned (it's enough, I think, to say which blood sugar level is considered hyperglycemic without going into the minutiae) and include a sentence or two about treatments or causes, which are not mentioned in the lead but are in the rest of the article.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Most added content is within the last five years, so yes.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Unsure. Most of the content focuses on intermittent fasting, which is good. However, it doesn't seem like it's pertinent to include the information about the myocardial infarction.

Content evaluation
I think more information can be added to connect your ideas together as they are very segmented right now. I would add in some basic information about the molecular perspective of what's going on with intermittent fasting, and get rid of anything that deviates from your focus.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes in that there isn't any viewpoints. However, some of what you've written has a lot of "coulds" in it (ie "intermittent fasting could decrease the body's use for...), which makes your article sound like it is not sure about itself and like it's not grounded in facts.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * None
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * None
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No

Tone and balance evaluation
This paper doesn't try to sway the reader to any particular perspective. Stick to facts that are 100% true and avoid anything that has qualifiers, like "could" or "maybe."

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * No. Much of the content is sourced by primary articles.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Somewhat. The sources are mostly primary sources. However, they seem to focus on different aspects involving intermittent fasting and hyperglycemia.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Most are from within the past five years.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes. I tested https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3376119/ and https://www.clinicalkey.com/#!/content/playContent/1-s2.0-S0026049507001242?returnurl=null&referrer=null

Sources and references evaluation
The clinical key source is incorrectly cited. I would have liked to see more secondary sources, but most are from the past 5 years, which is good.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * No. It is difficult to know what to read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Yes. Myocardial infarction, not infraction.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * No. The content seems to be broken down into non-cohesive facts.

Organization evaluation
Organization needs to be worked on. The facts that were added were done so without forming paragraphs. This makes it difficult for the reader to follow along and causes the edits to lack focus.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * n/a
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * n/a
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * n/a
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * n/a

Images and media evaluation
n/a

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?
 * n/a
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * n/a
 * 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?
 * n/a
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * n/a

New Article Evaluation
n/a

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * No. The new content does seem to add new information to the original article (intermittent fasting as a treatment for hyperglycemia is not included on the current page). However, the content is not written cohesively, so it will be difficult for the reader to gain this new information.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * Content is novel and will add new information to the "Treatment" section of the article.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Content should be placed into paragraphs for easy readability.

Overall evaluation
I think adding more secondary sources and writing about the facts your found in paragraph form will add nicely to the article. You have novel information that is not yet mentioned on the page, so I think you're in the right direction.