User:AustinKindelberger/Epidemiology of asthma/Sofie99 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? AustinKindelberger
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:AustinKindelberger/sandbox

Content evaluation:
This is a good start Austin. I was wondering though if there was data from a more recent study. 1992-93 seems like too far away to be relevant now. I think it would also be helpful for the table to be better labeled, I'm not entirely positive what all the columns are stating.

Tone and balance evaluation:
You did a good job in staying neutral and just stating facts. I didn't get a hint of a persuasion for either side which is good. I do think it would be helpful and if there is a good article that can back it up but comparing two or more Asian countries. You mention Japan but is there a way you could mention China or India, etc? I think it is a good idea to focus on Asian countries seeing as the original article lacks in that section.

Sources and references evaluation
The one from the EU I could not access without logging in so I was not able to verify if that was a good source. From what I can see, the first two sources you have are really good. The next 3 I can't completely tell if they are solid usable sources so before you publish your changes to the real page I would just double check that they are fully functioning and take you to exactly where you are getting your information from.

Organization evaluation:
Since this is a first draft I would just make sure that before you fully submit it that you read it out loud and make sure that it flows how yo want it too. Specifically this sentence: "A survey conducted by the ISSAC Steering Committee conducted a study from 1992 to 1993 in adults aged 22 to 44 comparing the prevalence of asthma in 10 developed countries" does not make sense. So I would encourage a read through and stick with one tense. Also I think that the "Increasing Frequency- Regional Differences" should be a heading within the subject overall.

Overall evaluation:
I think it was a nice idea to get more information for the section on Asia. From the original article you could tell there was a lack of information provided. A solid read through and then maybe see if there is more current information but if not the 1992-1993 research should be sufficient. This was a good first draft Austin. I think if you tidy it up a little bit it will be a great addition to the full article.