User:Jrb2022/Cardiac asthma/CLo12345 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Jrb2022


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Cardiac asthma


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Cardiac asthma

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 lead has been updated by my peer with new content. It also has a clear and concise introductory sentence in easy to understand language. The lead does have summaries of each section and does not include information not present in the article.

Content:

Content added is relevant to the topic and seems up to date. No missing sections. I personally like a prognosis section. There isn’t anything specific for underrepresented or special populations which may be a good addition later. If possible, some graphics may be a nice addition, such as a CXR, pictures of physical findings, or graphic of pathophysiology.

Tone and balance:  The content is neutral and easy to digest. There isn’t any explicit bias and presents information concisely. There is a lean towards modern Western medicine and healing of course. Maybe a section that states alternate forms of medicine with its efficacy and reviews on those forms of medicine may inform people who would be interested.

Sources:  The sources are mostly pretty current, majority of them within the last 10 years. All sources are relevant and predominantly in either review articles or textbooks. All the links checked worked.

Organization:  content is clear, concise and easy to read. Written for at least high school level education. All information is written in appropriate sections.

Images:  There are no images in this article. As stated before, some images may be beneficial for pathophysiology or findings.

Overall:  Great improvement from before peer editing. Has added significant, effective information, including multiple sections. Prognosis section might be helpful or epidemiology. Special populations or underrepresented population sections may also be beneficial.