Dear ,, 
 I'm writing to address a general complaint regarding content organization. One thing is that a lot of the article is written regarding and from the perspective of proven clinical efficacy. This being said, TMS is for the most part a research tool and the standard for proven clinical efficacy is often FDA-type approval from various governmental agencies. There is a lot of reliance on the Lefaucheur article, which while a great article, talks mostly about demonstrated clinical efficacy. The problem is that talking about all of these TMS applications in terms of clinical efficacy, the layman is unable to distinguish between the demonstration of clinical efficacy and the degree of clinical efficacy. For example, unipolar depression for TMS has demonstrated definite clinical efficacy, with an effect size of ~0.7 (depending on the paper). Whereas other studies may have similar effect sizes, but not enough studies to have demonstrated clinical efficacy to the standard that would satisfy a commission on the topic. This is confusing because after the introduction it kind of breaks down into specific treatments and efficacy recommendations from Lefaucher without any elaboration. Then mentions adverse effects, then three sentences about procedure (which actually is a useless section) and then a few line items about specific approvals for rTMS devices, then an interesting technical section, then a tiny history section. One sentence to address all of TMS research, and 5 sentences to address specific issues regarding study blinding. Somehow in all of this, the use of TMS for solely neuroscience purposes (looking at intracortical inhibition), using paired pulse inhibition to map cortical pathways, simultaneous use of TMS in fMRI, TMS as a cognitive-enhancement method, and basically anything non-medical are just not mentioned. 

 Given the disorganization in the article I think it would make sense to just wholesale reorganize it using a style of the EEG page (kind of) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroencephalography 
 I would propose: 
 *Introduction 
 *History (only 1 paragraph) 
 *How TMS works (technical information) 
 *TMS in the Clinic (FDA approved and techniques that can be considered on the way to approval) 
   -*Side Effects 
  - *Health insurance considerations 
   (I think we can actually skip the mentioning of specific devices and just throw them in a table) 
 *TMS in research (neuroscience and mentioning of other things under investigation but not yet viable for a real non-research application) 
 - Research Considerations (study blinding, safety)