User:Brandonalina/Cardiac rehabilitation/Alexander Quellhorst Peer Review

Peer review

The lead is balanced, well-structured and contains many relevant citations. It doesn't appear that the user has altered any of the content in the lead yet. As the user mentions in the corresponding Talk page, methods of rehabilitation are mentioned (by other editors) in the lead, but are not expanded upon in the body of the article.

The content added by the user is absolutely relevant to CR, and is of great value to the article itself. I would suggest that the user "Link" terms in Lifestyle changes, such as "obesity", "adipose", and "cytokines" to relevant Wikipedia pages. It's very easy to do and makes it much easier for future readers to move through the content.
The content is well-balanced, and the user's writing is concise, objective, and academically professional.

The user did not provide any grossly non-neutral content, nor did they overuse one perspective.

The references are fairly up-to-date, and largely come from schools of medicine and research organizations, which lends to their validity. The frequency of citations in the Lifestyle changes shows that the user has conducted thorough research. All of the links are fully functional.
- Note: At the very bottom of the article, there is a second References heading. I am not sure which user inserted those references there, but they should be integrated into the main heading rather than floating beneath.

The Lifestyle changes section is nicely organized, and the user's phrasing makes the material much easier to understand (as I'm not a biology/chemistry major). To see this section expanded even more would be a great addition to the page.

While the user did not add any images/media, I think that two or three visuals regarding CR would make the page more visually appealing. Specifically, an image of the anatomical heart would look good, as well as some picture demonstrating a CR method, or the effects of obesity on cardiovascular health.

All in all, I think that the user's edits are valuable contributions to the generally underdeveloped article, and I'm very much looking forward to seeing how it progresses in the coming days/weeks. I'm sure there's a plethora of up-to-date research on CV health and CR methods that would help to improve the quality of the page substantially. Alexander Quellhorst (talk) 19:10, 22 February 2020 (UTC)