User:Aollhoff13/Catamenial pneumothorax/Minikiwis Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Aollhoff13


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Aollhoff13/Catamenial_pneumothorax?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Catamenial pneumothorax

First paragraph
Be more clear when you mention "the right side." I'm assuming you mean the right side of the body (or lungs?), but someone else might not know that, so explicitly say that so there is no confusion.

Link some other wikipedia articles to specific terms you mention, like pelvic endometriosis and thoracic endometriosis. I think it would be nice to have this done throughout your entire contribution, but I'm only going to mention it as part of the first paragraph so I don't need to keep repeating myself.

Super minor, but if you refer to your topic as catamenial pneumothorax and you want to refer to it as an abbreviation later in your article, put the abbreivation in parentheses after you mention it fully spelled out once.

ex. Catamenial pneumothorax (CP)

Contribution in general
I'm not 100% sure what audience we are supposed to direct our article toward, so you might be able to completely ignore this comment, but I remember hearing in one of my classes that if something is going to be read by the general public, then we are supposed to describe things at a fifth grade reading level. I understand that it's difficult to do this when talking about complicated medical things, such as things that have been mentioned in your contribution, but it could be beneficial to go a little more in depth on what some mentioned terms mean. For example, mechanical pleurodesis, fenestrations, prostaglandin F2, etc. Upon typing this comment, I realize that some of these terms could simply be defined by linking them to another wikipedia article, so the choice is up to you (could be helpful to describe them yourself if you want to reach the word count, if you haven't already).

Overall, I think this is a well done contribution. I can't see any bias in this, everything is relevant, and sources are used to back up facts mentioned.