User:Holnesjc5773/Epidemiology of autism/Hannatol01 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Holnesjc5773


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Holnesjc5773/Epidemiology_of_autism?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Epidemiology of autism

Evaluate the drafted changes
Are there any sources that can back up that there is not a sufficient amount of present-day data to present? Are there sources that evaluate the past data and determine if that still stands true or not?

Do you have a source to back up the statement about the United Nations noting that many African countries define disabilities as physical and seen rather than mental and unseen?

Maybe add the abbreviation "ASD" after mentioning it so later on in article when use of abbreviation is used, there is no confusion on what it means.

Was there any more to the study in the 1970s that was mentioned that is worth mentioning? Did they make any conclusions on those nine children that were identified of having autism?

"Supposed associations with immigrants may predispose children to ASD, like low vitamin D in dark skin or perinatal infections.[ ]"- This sentence is kind of confusing- I understand in the sentence prior states that mothers who immigrated were more likely to birth children with autism than mothers who stayed in their home country; however, I am a bit confused about the vitamin D and perinatal infections part of the sentence and how that relates to immigration? Are you trying to say that immigration could predispose ASD and those other risk factors may lead to ASD as well? I looked at your link and I was unsure how it was related to immigration. (I only briefly looked at the link so this may be incorrect and there was a discussion about immigration within it).

Overall, the sources used seemed to be good reliable sources that accurately represent what is said and what is known within the topic.

Overall, a couple minor details have some confusion but overall content was well written and offers some insightful information on the topic-I liked how you chose to examine an underrepresented population.