User:D. Vase/Chronic condition/Subaitar34 Peer Review

General info
Here I'll be reviewing Guz's (D. Vase) edits to the article Chronic condition.

Lead
The lead defines chronic condition well, providing many examples and details on the actual definition. However, I found it doesn't reflect much on the other sections, not just the ones edited here, like prevention and risk factors. I think it's a good introductory portion but needs more on the other sections in the article.

Content
The content added seems relevant to the topic and up-to-date. There's nothing there that doesn't belong and it seems to elevate the quality of the article as a whole. The use of the case study from Ethiopia seems especially relevant here.

Tone and Balance
All new additions are neutral and fact-based, with no clear biases. The nursing portion in particular is fleshed out well, given that it's where Guz's research was based. I look forward to seeing other advocacy methods included.

Sources and References
All the sources are backed up well; the links do work. As a form of advice I'd say instead of making a new reference link for each sentence when you use the same article, you can click "reuse" and it'll put the same number heading and citation for the sentence. That way you won't have 3 separate citations listed with the same source.

Organization
The organization is good, for the most part it's clear to read. The sentence "The neoliberal perspective on how patients with chronic diseases may practice self-care in the product of understanding different addresses in the political regime" is a little hard for to understand; I'm not sure if this is a complete sentence. Also, "a study in Ethiopia showcases a primary healthcare approach to the management of chronic disease examines" just seems to need an edit with verb tense so it's more coherent. I'm not sure if "thus" is the right transition for it after, but this is just a stylistic suggestion. These are small edits to make that don't take away from the general quality of the added section, overall this is a well-written section.

Overall impressions
The added content is well written and really valuable towards elevating the quality of the chosen section of the article. It definitely makes it more complete, and it's strong in its clarity. I would just make a few edits with the citation and some grammar. Great job!