User:Yealee0401/Acute muscle soreness/Melsar3 Peer Review
Peer review[edit]
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.
General info[edit]
- Whose work are you reviewing?
- ItzelZ197, Jtan4, Ortiz56, Yealee0401, Zwei84
- Link to draft you're reviewing:
Lead[edit]
Guiding questions:
- Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
- Not much, but within the contents box, they removed the references section.
- Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
- Yes; however, I think more could be added to ensure that the reader knows what the article is going to go into.
- Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
- Mostly, a brief description of treatment could be added to the lead as it is one of the sections within the article.
- Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
- Yes. They do not go into the accumulation of chemical end products and tissue edema, although it is stated in the lead.
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
- concise
Lead evaluation[edit]
Content[edit]
Guiding questions:
- Is the content added relevant to the topic?
- Nothing was added to the topic.
- Is the content added up-to-date?
- Nothing was added; however, most of the content that is displayed on the article is not up-to-date.
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
- Yes, there are sections within the content of the article that are missing yet are included in the lead, specifically the causes section where is states the tissue edema, chemical end products, and muscle fatigue. Additionally, more can be added in the treatment section. More information could be added under the causes section with the two pathways: dehydration and electrolyte imbalance. There are also sources missing for this section.
Content evaluation[edit]
Tone and Balance[edit]
Guiding questions:
- Is the content added neutral?
- Yes, the content within the article 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
Tone and balance evaluation[edit]
Sources and References[edit]
Guiding questions:
- Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
- Yes
- Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
- Yes
- Are the sources current?
- No, only one source is current.
- Check a few links. Do they work?
- Yes
Sources and references evaluation[edit]
Organization[edit]
Guiding questions:
- Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
- Yes
- Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
- There are still a few grammatical errors within the article, but not many.
- Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
- For the most part; however, some can still be organized in a way that reflects what was stated in the lead so the reader has an easier time following through when reading.
Organization evaluation[edit]
Images and Media[edit]
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?
- There are no images.
- Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
- There are no images.
- Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
- There are no images.
Images and media evaluation[edit]
For New Articles Only[edit]
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?
New Article Evaluation[edit]
Overall impressions[edit]
Guiding questions:
- Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
- No, there was not much added to the article to improve the overall quality.
- What are the strengths of the content added?
- There was not much added.
- How can the content added be improved?
- More should be added to improve the content. For example, organization of the lead and the body of the article could definitely improve the article. Additionally, adding more sources and more information under certain sections will also improve the overall quality of the article.