User:Caroline.t1202/Lymphatic filariasis/Barkerak7064 Peer Review

General info
Caroline.t1202
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Caroline.t1202/Lymphatic_filariasis?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):

Evaluate the drafted changes
Hi Caroline’s group. Here's my peer review for you,

Lead


 * Has the Lead    been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? - A new lead     has been added, and the small changes you made are relevant, however there     was a large section added later in the article relating to the epidemiology     of the disease, an update of this to the lead might be necessary.

Content


 * Is the content    added relevant to the topic? -Yep, all of what I have read in     this article that was added appears to be relevant to the topic of the     article. The part of the endemic countries is well written and very     technical, I would suggest maybe breaking up the article if it makes more     sense too, however it still reads fine as a single paragraph.
 * Is the content    added up-to-date? – Yes, articles in references     are not from the 90s
 * Is there    content that is missing or content that does not belong? – I don’t believe     that there is any content that does not belong, all the added content adds     to the understanding of the disease and elaborates on the epidemiology portion     of the article.
 * Does the    article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics     related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? – Yep, this     disease especially effects low equity populations or historic populations     facing poverty and environmental hardship, the included information on how     the drug treatment programs is working I believe is important to the article.

Tone and Balance


 * Is the content    added neutral? Yep, all added to the article was scientific or medical information,     no stance was taken.
 * Are there    viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?:  see prior comment.

Sources and References


 * Is all new    content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information-  all sources that I looked over are reliable,     however the 5th source of information might need to be reiwed,     it lists “home” for pub med central, a more specific link might be needed     for the source to be more exact.

All sources are current, and for the most part I do not believe this section needs to be changed or reviewed further.

Organization


 * Is the content    added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes it easy to     read; I think just going back and reading out loud will help catch any     conflicts/errors too.
 * Does the    content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?

Reading over the added content, there was no overall grammatical or spelling errors, other than the word editor not recognizing words, however

“impacting hundred million people and manifesting itself in a variety of severe clinical pathologies.” I believe that (a) needs to be added after impacting, impacting a hundred million

Another clarity thing Several mosquito bites over several months or years are required in order to develop Lymphatic Filariasis  I might suggest this is not as vague a sentence, or rewording to be less open.

Overall impressions


 * This article    seems to be almost ready to publish to the page, it is well edited and has     ample sources and good information. Other than a couple minor grammar and flow     edits I believe that there is not much needed to do to complete the article.     The added information is supported and further supplements the information     already provided In the article, overall great work in my opinion.

Alex