User:Yealee0401/Acute muscle soreness/Natsar6 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? ( ItzelZ197, Jtan4, Ortiz56, Yealee0401, Zwei84)
• Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Yealee0401/Acute muscle soreness

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
  • The lead has not been updated
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
  • It does include an introductory sentence that clearly describes the topic
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
  • There is a brief description on the causes of the topic, but all contents are not included. For example, treatments is not discussed in the lead, and that is part of the major sections it seems.
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
  • Tissue Edema is not included within the article, but it is included within the lead. In addition, there is no discussion of accumulation of chemical end products within the article, and the information in the lead regarding muscle fatigue is only discussed in a rudimentary fashion, and can still be discussed more in depth.
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
  • It is concise

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic?
  • There was no content added, but everything for now is relevant
• Is the content added up-to-date?
  • The content currently displayed is somewhat up-to-date, but most sources are older. However, no content was actually added.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
  • There is content missing that was mentioned in the lead, but not in main parts of the article, but all content seems to be relevant and belongs.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

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

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
  • Most content is backed up by reliable secondary source information; however, it seems as though the article regarding anaerobic threshold is possibly a primary source, and should be reconsidered.
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
  • The sources do reflect the literature on the topic.
• Are the sources current?
  • The sources are not current for the most part (some within past 5 years, and are ok).
• Check a few links. Do they work?
  • All links work

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
  • No content really added, but what is currently there is concise and clear to read. Maybe there could be more of an explanation in own words to make it in easier terms for the reader.
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
  • There are no grammatical or spelling errors.
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
  • Yes, broken down and well organized. Goes in depth on what lead states , and in order.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

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

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?
  • Not new article
• How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
  • Not new article
• 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?
  • Not new
• Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
  • Not new

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
  • Overall quality is good, but definitely needs elaboration
• What are the strengths of the content added?
  • Great organization, neutral
• How can the content added be improved?
  • Add more information on things mentioned in lead, but not in the actual article. Explain certain parts of article, and make it easier to understand through elaboration.