User:Cailen1/Myocarditis/Mattsoml7031 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? Cailen1
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Cailen1/Myocarditis

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
I don't think the group edited the lead

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, all information appears relevant to the topic.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? One of their references is from 2013 and talks about sex and gender differences which could make your statistics a little outdated.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Assuming you're adding this into the epidemiology section I would say you could include differences around the world and the statistics comparing different countries.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No, only talks about the difference in risk between children, females, and males.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No bias, article only lists facts and statistics from references.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? None.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No like I stated above.

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.
 * Are the sources current? The oldest source is 2013 which is mildly outdated. All other sources are current.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes and yes.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? All links work.

Sources and references evaluation
'''Overall sources look good. If you were to add additional information about other countries obviously you would need to seek and add additional sources.'''

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, information is easy to read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? None noted.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, information is broken down in a way that makes sense.

Organization evaluation

 * Overall organization is good. I would suggest adding information that talks about comparisons between countries and leading countries in cases.

Overall evaluation
Overall I think this article needs minor improvements such as additional information that would broaden the topics you cover.