User:Jshelby9/Pitt–Hopkins syndrome/Ajr1234 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(Jshelby9)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jshelby9/Pitt%E2%80%93Hopkins_syndrome?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_templat


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Pitt–Hopkins syndrome

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.)


 * The lead has not been updated to reflect the new information added. I would suggest updating the lead section so that it reflects all of the information covered in the article.
 * The content added is relevant to the topic and the the the content is up-to-date because it has occurred within the last five years. There does not seem to be content that is out of place of content that does not belong. The content does cover topics that are underrepresented because this is a disorder that is not really talked about in the media or in research on a major level.
 * The content added is reported in a neutral tone and there is not any information that is bias towards a certain position. The viewpoints that is overrepresented just because the only section that is covered is the characteristic of the disorder in children. I would suggest looking up more research about the topic, preferably concerning the diagnosis part of the topic. Also, the content added does not try to persuade the reader into a certain position or away form a another position.
 * All the new content is backed up be a reliable source because the source if from a platform that has good research and the source is a piece of secondary literature. However, I would check the date on the source because there is mark in red about it. After, checking the source the content added does accurately reflect the information in the article and it is reworded in an appropriate way, for example, the content does not contain any close paraphrasing or word-for-word plagiarism. The source is thorough and it is connected to the available literature on the topic. The source is also current because it has been published in the last five years. The source does not appear to include a diverse group of authors, however, it does include a historically marginalized individuals, for example, it include women and children. However, there are better sources available. I would suggest looking for systematic reviews about Pitt-Hopkins Syndrome on Google Scholar because there is dome information about the clinical approach tot he disorder. The link for the source does work and it is accessible for everyone to read.
 * The content added is concise and easy to read and it does not contain nay grammatical or spelling errors. The content added is well organized, however I would suggest putting the information under the section " Signs and symptoms" since it is talking about the characteristics in children with the disorder.
 * The information added does improve the overall quality of the article. Some of the strengths about the content added is that it furthers the knowledge about the disorder and it gives readers an opportunity to learn more about the topic. Some weaknesses about the content is that there is only one section that is covered. I would suggest looking for systematic reviews or a meta analysis that talks about the diagnosis or the treatment on Google Scholar or another database for articles. Overall, the information reported in this article draft is good and it covers atopic that most people probably have not heard about. With a few improvements the final product has the potential to improve the quality of the article.