User:Djfayze/Tuberculoma/Adventuregurl97 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(provide username)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

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.)

Djfayze completed a thorough review of the page "tuberculoma" with the following feedback from peer review provided below:

Lead

- The lead has been updated to reflect the new content added

-The lead has an introductory sentence that describes the articles topic

-The lead is concise and not overly detailed without information that is not otherwise present in the article.

Content

- Content added is extensive and relative to the topic.

- The content added is all up to date.

- The epidemiology, mechanism, signs and symptoms, imaging, diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis content are all extensively covered.

Tone

-The tone of the content added is neutral. There are no biased claims or over/underrepresented viewpoints.

-There is no attempt at persuasion in this topic.

References

-All content is well cited by a reliable secondary source of information.

-Content accurately reflects what the cited sources say.

-Sources are mostly current. There are some that are >5 years old. Consider revising for more current sources.

-Links work in the references section.

Organization:

-Content is concise and well written. No grammatical or spelling errors.

-Organization is consistent with Wiki recommended organization.

Images and Media:

-Images are accurate, depict images of tuberculomas and adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations.

-Images are laid out in a visually appealing way

Overall impressions:

This was a very well written article. The vast majority of this article was written and cited by Djfayze. The data is current, up to date, and well organized.

Comments for improvement:

There are some words that are in medical terminology that could have been linked to definitions to help the average reader. For example, in the epidemiology section: infratentorial vs supratentorial could be linked to pages that described what these are to the lay person.

Consider linking definitions to words in the mechanism section such as "bacteremia", "granulomatous inflammation", "caseous", "mycobacterium tuberculosis, "blood brain barrier", "cytokines" etc.

Apply this idea to the other sections.

It would be interesting to provide pictures of the CT vs MRI imaging pointing out the "target sign" that is pathognomonic.

Overall- fantastic job! Keep up the great work!