User:Anewell95/Ketosis-prone diabetes/Jrb2022 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Anewell95


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Ketosis-prone diabetes

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Lead:  The lead has been updated by my peer with new content. The introductory sentence is slightly vague by setting up the article as a comparison of type 1 and type 2 diabetes, but not a clear description of the article at hand. Describing the condition as a type of diabetes with certain features present would be great in the Lead section. Additionally, the lead section has a lot of information that is not presented in separate subsections. I would suggest providing a quick synopsis of the disease and reference to following sections, then move the bulk of information to Etiology and Diagnosis/Diagnostic Workup sections.

Content:

Content added is relevant to the topic and seems up to date. Additional sections could be provided to help guide readers through article, such as Etiology, Pathophysiology, Diagnosis/Diagnostic Workup sections. There isn’t anything specific for underrepresented or special populations which may be a good addition later. If possible, some graphics may be a nice addition, such as a pictogram of insulin on cell or beta cell production of insulin.

Tone and balance:  The content is neutral and heavily based in researched material. There isn’t any explicit bias and presents information concisely.

Sources:  The sources are current, and are from reliable sources. All the links checked worked. Addition of citations throughout article will be needed to back up large portions of commentary.

Organization:  Topic appears to be more directed towards medical professional instead of lay person, and work could be done to increase ease of reading through explanations of more difficult concepts or introduction of more deep links for readers to explore on own. As mentioned above, addition of more subsections will increase approachability of article to readers and help with flow of information.

Images:  There are no images in this article. As stated before, some images may be beneficial for explanation of mechanism of action or function of different elements of the disease.

Overall:  Great improvement from before peer editing, and includes addition of management and prognosis sections. More sections should be added to help increase the readability of the article. Suggested improvements are: shortening Lead to pertinent information for quick glance, creating subsections for Etiology complete with type 1 v type 2 comparison and similarities, and Diagnosis work up. Information is up to date, and provides great addition to prior article status.