User:Divemaster26/Central sleep apnea/Aollhoff13 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Divemaster26


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Divemaster26/Central sleep apnea


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Central sleep apnea

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Lead
The article doesn't really have a lead or sections at all. The information in the additions is really good information, and I think that splitting it up could really take it to the next level. Organizing a little and adding some more can take the additions from good to great. Maybe consider adding a lead section.

Content
As far as content, it all is definitely relevant and pretty interesting. When most people think of sleep apnea, I think many of us just think there is one type (I didn't really realize there were multiple, personally) and you did a good job of showing that there is a difference. The original article doesn't do an amazing job of describing what exactly that difference is and the symptomatic differences if there are any, so that could be something good for you to add if you want. I also think your addition could be a little longer overall because the original article could use the help. I like the use of statistics and it's good information that the original article was lacking.

Tone and Balance
The content added seems neutral and I do not think that it is swayed in any way towards one position or another because it's purely factual.

Sources and References
After clicking the links of your sources, they all seem very reliable. They look to be good, peer-reviewed sources and I have no reason to believe they're not good sources to use. They're all fairly recent, with the oldest being from 2016, which is good time-wise for articles like these ones. You did a good job with citing your sources throughout your writing and flagging what information came from which source. The source information is also accurate to the actual sources and the links within the writing work as well.

Organization
The content is well-written and concise. There don't seem to be grammar or spelling errors. Sectioning would be useful in organizing information. Currently, the content is not broken up at all really into different major points. This would help significantly in finding information as a reader and would make the information more presentable, especially when seeking this information out. It would be nice if topics were broken down to be able to find something specific.