User:Camarieslagle/Pemphigus vulagis/Camarieslagle Peer Review

General info

 * Sanderba3037
 * Link to draft: User:Sanderba3037/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * The Lead was not updated, and contains some info on mortality rate and population affected generally without being bogged down with information.
 * Content could be added to the lead about the prevalence of the disease more specifically.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * The information is definitely relevant and an 'epidemiology' section is necessary for this article to be more complete!
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * The content is up-to-date as two of the three sources used for writing the content are from 2019 and the other from 2014.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * You state the number of people affected in the UK. Could you add more on the number of people affected elsewhere? In the Lead and other sections it does not talk about the UK, so I'm assuming this disease is found in other geographical regions.
 * Good talking about the effectiveness of treatment and racial backgrounds of those with this disease.

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?
 * National Organization for Rare Disorders (NORD) and the research article are reliable sources of information. Patient.info is where the other source is located, and I am not sure that this is a reliable source. Is there another place where this information can be found? How reliable is this source?
 * Statistical statements or information that is new should have the [X] citation after it.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Sources are thorough in their detail and description.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes, two are from 2019 and one from 2014.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes, the links work!

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, the content is to-the-point, clear, and easy to read and follow.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * There is a spot after "loss of fluids" that contains both a period and then a coma. I believe the period just needs to be deleted.
 * When UK is first stated I believe "United Kingdom" should be spelled out since this is the first mention.
 * 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?
 * No
 * Are images well-captioned? N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? 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?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * The content has improved the overall quality of the article, as the article was previously missing large chunks of epidemiological information that is necessary and pertinent for completeness.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The content is focused on epidemiological information and informs the reader of the incidence rate, population affected, and treatment effectiveness. The content is straightforward and easy to read.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Could add more on the incidence rate in other places aside from the UK (i.e. U.S. or worldwide?).
 * What external factors can affect the development of this disease?
 * Great job overall!