User:Blazer00/Causes of autism/Lydiaham Peer Review

I am unsure of what all were your edits, but I did my best to provide insight on the article in general.

Lead: Intro sentence is good. The description of potential causes may be better split into ideas that correspond with the sections of the article, ex. Many causes have been proposed, including pre and post natal environmental factors as well as genetic predisposition. The lead section was concise and did not include information that was not covered in the body of the article.

Content: The content is relevant to the topic. Overall, it looked pretty up to date. I didn't notice any big gaps in content.

Tone/Balance: Overall, the content was balanced well. There was not a bias towards one viewpoint.

Sources/References: The sources seemed fairly reputable, but were a bit old. A lot of the sources referenced were as old as 1995, which may need to be replaced with something more recent on that topic.

Organization: Well-written/no noticeable grammatical errors. The sections are logical.

Images/Media: There could be slightly more images, but it was okay without.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Blazer00


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Causes of autism


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Causes of autism

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.)