User:Kerrymonique/Spigelian hernia/Lizrileymga 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? Kerrymonique
• Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Kerrymonique/Spigelian hernia

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? Yes
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Could be more concise

Lead evaluation

The lead presents information that isn't in the body of the article. In some ways it could be more concise and in other ways in should be expanded to include information in additional sections.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic? It appears to be, considering my limited knowledge of this topic
• Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Not that I am can see.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral? Yes
• 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

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?Yes, except in the treatment section. There are several sentences with no source.
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? As far as i know.
• Are the sources current? Yes
• Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Sources and references evaluation

Make sure all information has citations. Also, citations would be better in the shortened footnote (SFN) format.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation

The sentences in the Diagnosis section that begin at "Considering a significant portion..." seem to fit better in the Treatment section.

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?
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

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
• What are the strengths of the content added?
• How can the content added be improved? The article could be improved by a re-write of the lead and ensuring content of sections matches section title

Overall evaluation

These additions to the article have improved the article. Some work could be done on the lead and on content. Additional pictures would also be helpful.