User:Delaney555/Asperger syndrome/Cfarmer4 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Delaney555

Link to draft you're reviewing

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Delaney555/Asperger_syndrome?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Asperger syndrome

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? The lead has not been updated yet.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? The introductory sentence already gives a clear view of what Asperger Syndrome is.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The lead glosses over some of the sections but does not mention all of the major sections.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is 4 paragraphs but I do not think it is overly detailed or needs to be edited.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? The content added is very relevant to the topic. Statements were added to describe social characteristics, intervention and treatment options, and communication skills that are needed when talking to an individual with Asperger Syndrome.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes. Most of the information is cited and the oldest source is from 2014.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? The tone is neutral and uses words that portray that some treatment options are good without saying they are better than others.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Most of the content is backed up by sources. I noted one sentence had "citation needed" in parentheses at the end of it but all other statements were cited.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) The content matches the sources and their information.
 * Are the sources current? The oldest source is from 2014 which is a little old but the others are quite current
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work? All of the links are functioning.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? I think that the content is well written and concise. I would reword this sentence "Because of their lack of social cues and social disadvantages it can make a person (individuals) with Aspergers come off as rude". I think it could sound better if you said " Due to their lack of understanding of social cues, individuals with Aspergers can be seen as rude".
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? There are parts where you have made notes for yourself such as "(for the best results?)" and "(CITATION?). Don't forget to remove these and reword the sentence.

Overall, I think you have done a great job of adding content that would benefit the original article. My main advice would be to go back through and delete the notes you made for yourself, add one citation, and change the wording on a few statements.