User:Cawna89/History of leprosy/Hannahah01 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Cawna89


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Cawna89/History of leprosy


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * History of leprosy

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead:


 * 1) The content added is relevant and backed up by a reliable source.
 * 2) I think it would be beneficial if you expanded on this history of leprosy in New Orleans. You have a sentence about it but I think it would be informative to add another sentence or two about the impact.

Organization:


 * 1) The article is very organized, and each section has labels with appropriate information.
 * 2) The content is well-written and concise, with no grammatical errors.

Content:


 * 1) The content added is very relevant and up-to-date. There is no missing content. I did not see anything in the Sandbox that addressed equity gaps. However, parts of the article address higher prevalence in certain regions.
 * 2) The addition of a Symptoms section was well done. It was very thorough and added the information needed by the article.

Tone:


 * 1) The added content is neutral.
 * 2) There are no statements that appear to sway the reader.
 * 3) The article is written in an informative manner rather than a persuasive one.

Sources:


 * 1) Two sources were added, and they are reliable. The sources back up the added information.
 * 2) You could use some more sources, especially from journals like PubMed, which would be helpful.

Overall Impressions:


 * 1) Great job on the symptoms section. All the added content is very informative and organized.
 * 2) You have great sources but you could add a few more. Anthropological and medical journals may be helpful.