User:Kbischoff99/Sex differences in autism/Lucyc2 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Kbischoff99


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kbischoff99/Sex_differences_in_autism?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Sex differences in autism

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


 * I think the information you contributed in the lead is relevant and does a good job introducing the audience to some reasons why sex differences in rates of ASD exist
 * The article lead, as it stands now, lacks a certain sense of introduction (in my opinion). If you'd like, I think drafting a quick topic sentence or a statistic to contextualize the rest of the article would go a long way in bolstering the article overall

Content


 * Just based on your research, and the information you've decided to include in the article, you strike me as someone with some familiarity with this topic. I don't want to overstep my bounds here or pile unnecessary work on you, but just from scanning this article I felt a lack of description on how autism presents in girls compared to boys. I think the article as it stands already has some scattered information about this, but I can't help but consider the benefits that a section or lead just dedicated to this matter might improve the article's organization and overall readability. Do you think this inclusion might add some value to the article? If so, would you be up for trying to draft one?
 * I'm really excited for you! This sounds like a really interesting topic to investigate

Tone and Balance


 * I think you're good on the neutrality front - all the information you've included so far feels relevant and very at home with the rest of the article

Sources and References


 * Really well researched so far! Like I said, it feels like you know what to look for with these edits

Organization


 * I agree with Dr. Rahn's edit at the bottom of your sandbox, but other than that, I think your proposed edits fit exactly where you've outlined them in the article

Images and Media


 * Since there are no images or graphics as of yet in the article, I don't think it would hurt to find a little something to include!

Overall Impressions


 * I think you've done a really good job so far!
 * Maybe expanding on some of your edits or finding some more gaps in the article to fill would be worthwhile - the more you contribute, the more work you can be graded on!