User:Dmil3422/Laron Syndrome/BGiebel Peer Review

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username)
 * Dmil3422
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * Laron syndrome

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * yes Dmil3422 has a done a great job including new information into the lead
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * yes.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * yes there are elements of each section of the article found within the lead
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * there is one section of the lead that mention that there are 250 cases in the world, and this is not found in the incidence section below.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * the lead is very detailed in its information

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * yes, multiple important sections have been added and expanded
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * yes, many up to date references have been utilized for the article
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I do not think that there is any content that needs to be removed at the moment. the only section that I would add for completeness sake is a differential diagnosis section (although this is listed in the table to the right of the article, just not expanded on)
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topic
 * yes this article deals with a very rare disease that is underrepresented in practice and in literature.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * no
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * none that are easily identifiable
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * no

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * yes
 * Are the sources current?
 * yes, many new resources within the last 5 years have been added and referenced
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * there are multiple resources that have been used from the namesake of the disease. but they are less that 1/3 of the sources.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * yes they work

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * the additions are thought out, well written, and easy to read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * in the first sentence there should be a comma after insensitivity
 * no other obvious grammatical errors noted
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * yes, each section is well thought out and well organized

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * yes
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * yes

For New Articles Only                                           This section is not applicable to the article.
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * absolutely. the content added has greatly expanded on multiple aspects of the topic
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * the information on the pathophysiologic aspects of the disease is very good
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * you could maybe add additional content with regards to the overall prognosis of the disease