User:Applebutterfly/Ortner's syndrome/PerpetuallyTachy Peer Review

General info

 * Ortner's syndrome by User: Applebutterfly
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Ortner's syndrome

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Not much was added but modifications were made to have a better organized lead.
 * 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?
 * Not exactly. A sentence of the syndrome's brief history is mentioned followed by related diseases.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes, the sentence regarding dysphagia aortica/lusoria as well as Ortner's sydnrome II
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is quite concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes!
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes! there is some content from prior to 5 years but most of the new citations are within the 5 year mark
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Not particularly. An epidemiology section could be added if that content exists in the literature. A diagnosis and treatment section could potentially add more following the pathophysiology section
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * No

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?
 * For the most part, as one of the cases described int he Pathophysiology section is marked as citation needed.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * There is potential to add more information regarding diagnostic options and treatment options for the most common presentations based on the current citations or newer ones available.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Most of the newer additions are more recent but some older sources are still present. This could be valid based on how much available content there is on this rare disease.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Unsure
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * yes
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * yes

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! The addition of a differential and pathophysiology related to common presentation adds a great deal to expand on this rare disease.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * Good coverage of some varied presentations and addition of a differential
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * There could be more added in terms of epidemiology, diagnostic options, and treatment.