User:Hvonruden13/Lewy body dementia/Sam Halada 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? Hvonruden13
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Hvonruden13/Lewy body dementia

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation

 * The intro sentence is good in the sense that I can tell what the wiki topic is, but you could probably make it a little more broad before jumping right into the epidemiology of the disease.
 * The lead defiantly allows the reader to understand that you will be talking about the epidemiology behind lewy body dementia, but I think there could be a smoother transition created between talking about gender and race.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation

 * The content is very relevant to the topic. I like how you talked about the risk factors that go along with the comorbidity of the disease.
 * The first source is from 2013 which is fairly out dated and may lead to content that is not very up to date.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation

 * The only opinions discussed in the draft is that more research would be beneficial to help patients deal with the disease if they get diagnosed, which isn't really a biased opinion. They stayed very neutral throughout the draft by sticking to just discussing the facts supported by their sources.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources 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?

Sources and references evaluation

 * All of the sources seem to be reliable and the links work. The only questionable source is the one from 2013, which seems a bit old. The information may still be the most up to date information available on the topic, but if that hasn't been checked it wouldn't be a bad idea to look into that.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation

 * I didn't find any grammatical errors, and for the most part its quite organized. The only thing I would suggest is that when discussing the risk factors/comorbidity, keep the information about gender trends by each other as one section rather than switching between a discussion on gender and benefits of further research.

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


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

Images and media evaluation
N/A

For New Articles Only
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 info boxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

New Article Evaluation
N/A

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation

 * Aside from the suggestions I've already made I think this is a good addition to the Wiki page being edited. The epidemiology section currently in the article doesn't discuss anything regarding how sex affects this disease or about the the comorbidity which are both extremely important factors. All the other article talked about was how many people the disease affected in 2014 which, for one, is very out dated and that information means nothing if you don't know the factors behind how this disease is developed.