User:Conradbolz/Osgood–Schlatter disease/Fdk321 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)
  • Conradbolz
• Link to draft you're reviewing:
  • User:Conradbolz/Osgood–Schlatter disease

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
  • The lead has not been updated yet, but the lead already includes a good overview.
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
  • The lead has a clear introductory sentence, and it has a good introduction for the topic of Osgood-Schlatter disease.
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
  • Yes, lead provides some general information about the major topics in the article.
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
  • It does not include information that is not expanded further in the article

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic?
  • The content that is being added is very relevant to the topic and does a great job of adding and explaining more statistics.
• Is the content added up-to-date?
  • Most of the content that was added is up to date. There are a few articles that were published over 7 years ago, but they still seem relevant to the topic.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
  • All the content that was added is very relevant and enhances the article. In addition, it is very complete and does not seem to be missing anything.
• Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
  • This article does not deal with one of the equity gaps. Although the article does not exclude underrepresented groups, it also does not bring them up.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral?
  • The content that was added was neutral and Conradbolz did a good job of just sticking to the facts.
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
  • The claims that are made have facts to back them up and do not appear to be biased. The phrasing that was used helps the reader know that they are just presenting facts and not opinion.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
  • The viewpoints have a good balance of representation because facts and research were used to support the points.
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
  • No. After reading the article I do not feel persuaded one way or another because only facts were included, and the writer did not add any personal opinions.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
  • All the sources that were used were very reliable sources of information because they all come from reputable journals.
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
  • The sources are that were used for the new content definitely reflect available literature because they come from medical journals that publish accurate information
• Are the sources current?
  • For the most part the sources are current; however, one was published in 2010 and another in 2013 which are not as current.
• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
  • It is hard to tell for sure, but I think that they come from a variety of authors because the journals are from different parts of the world, such as Brazil, America, and Scandinavia. In addition, there is also a variety of journal topics such as sports and surgery.
• Check a few links. Do they work?
  • The links work!

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
  • The new content is very clear and concise, but there are a few instances where it is a bit choppy which can be hard to read. In the first sentence, I think it would help the reader if it was reworded. The content is needed, but it does not flow great. Overall, it is easy to read there are just a few spots to rewrite
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
  • Overall, it looks really good. But there are a few little things that could be fixed. "Adolescents" and "With" in the second paragraph do not need to be capitalized and rewording a few areas to make them more clear.
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
  • The content that is being added is very well-organized and the writer did a great job of breaking it down into small paragraphs to move from point to point.

Images and Media: NA

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: NA

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?
  • The article will definitely be more complete with the new addition of more data about Osgood-Schlatter, explanations about how the diagnosis works, and why some adolescents are more likely to get the disease.
• What are the strengths of the content added?
  • The strengths of the new content are that it sticks to the facts, does not show bias, and that it shows the data about Osgood-Schlatter from an epidemiological standpoint which will add another component to the article.
• How can the content added be improved?
  • Improvements could be made by rewording some sections where the information is good, but hard to read. Also, by fixing the little grammar errors. Once these things changed, I think that this will be a great addition to the article. Lastly, do not forget to add your sources to the bibliography page!