User:BGiebel/Cardiac amyloidosis/Ff0088 Peer Review

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username)

BGiebel


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:

Cardiac amyloidosis

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?

could add brief treatment statement in 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?

yes


 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?

no


 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

concise

Lead evaluation
Good updated expansion but could use additional substance.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?

yes


 * Is the content added up-to-date?

yes


 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

no


 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

yes, incidence of Familial (ATTRm-CM) in African American populations.

Content evaluation
excellent expansions of the types of CA, symptoms, diagnosis and treatment options.

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

Tone and balance evaluation
balanced, unbiased

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? yes, all review articles
 * Are the sources current? yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? yes, yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? yes

Sources and references evaluation
relevant, up to date and robust

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? yes, all of the above
 * 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

Organization evaluation
all of thee above

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


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

Images and media evaluation
n/a

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?

New Article Evaluation
n/a

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Absolutely
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Further detail on treatment options with relevant, up to date sources.
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
Great work Brian!