User:Benjuckett/Iliotibial band syndrome/Liv2020 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)
  • Benjuckett
• Link to draft you're reviewing:
  • Iliotibial band syndrome

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
  • Yes, the lead has been updated. Could not find the information in his sandbox, just found it under his username.
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
  • Yes, the Lead includes 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?
  • No, the Lead does not include a brief description of the article's major sections.
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
  • No, the Lead does not include information that is not present in the article.
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
  • Yes, the Lead is concise.

Lead evaluation

The Lead adds more important information about the syndrome about the body area. I would add more information about the anatomy and describe brief descriptions of the major article sections.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic?
  • Yes, the content added is relevant to the topic.
• Is the content added up-to-date?
  • Yes, the content added is relevant to the topic.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
  • All of the content added belongs. Some more content sections can be added.

Content evaluation

The content added is relevant and pertinent to the knowledge of the syndrome. Content sections that can be added are Prevention, Differential Diagnosis, and Modalities.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral?
  • Yes, the content added is neutral.
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
  • No, there are not any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
  • No, there are not any viewpoints that are overrepresented or underrepresented.
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
  • No, the content added does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another.

Tone and balance evaluation

The tone and balance of the content added is well done. I don't think any changes need to be made in reference to tone and balance of the content added.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
  • Although you added all these great sources, all sources should be systematic reviews, meta-analysies or from textbooks according to the trainings.
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
  • Some of the references need dates. They do reflect the available literature on the topic.
• Are the sources current?
  • Some of the sources are current, but not all of them.
• Check a few links. Do they work?
  • Yes, the links work.

Sources and references evaluation

Overall, a number of new sources and references were added. Some of the sources were old, so I would try to find newer ones if possible. Also, make sure they are reputable and not just ones you could find anywhere. Try textbooks - they are the easiest to adjust

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
  • Yes, the content added was well-written.
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
  • No, I did not find any grammatical or spelling errors in the content added.
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
  • Yes, the added is well-organized.

Organization evaluation

Overall, the content added was very organized.

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

No images or media was 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, the article is more complete with the content added.
• What are the strengths of the content added?
  • The strengths are the Treatment and Epidemiology sections.
• How can the content added be improved?
  • Some content areas can be added to improve the article.

Overall evaluation

The content added to the article was well done. I think that added more content sections could be beneficial to people reading about the syndrome. The tone and balance of the content added was neutral. The new information added about treatment of this syndrome is very helpful. A number of sources/references were added, which is great. I would find newer articles and textbooks for more information regarding the syndrome.