User:Kemorri/Lewy body/Dancer811 Peer Review

General info
Kemorri
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Lewy body

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
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? yes
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? no
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? concise

Overall, the lead has a good introduction that is concise and relays the information regarding lewy bodies well. The intro helps set up the rest of the article format wise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? yes for the most part, but some references are over 25 years old, which could use some updating to make sure the science is correct with today's new findings.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? no
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? no

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? yes, there doesn't seem to be any particular bias
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? no
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? no
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? no, the lead does a good job of just sticking to the facts

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? yes
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? yes
 * Are the sources current? only some of them. some sources are over 25 years old, so that could use some updating.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? yes, there is some diversity
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) some better source options would be some that are up to date
 * Check a few links. Do they work? yes

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? concise and easy to follow along
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? yes
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? the article is structured in a way that makes sense for the reader

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? yes, based on looking at the edit history, I can see how the article is more concise and flows better
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The addition of more concise information helps the reader understand the content more clearly.
 * How can the content added be improved? I suggest maybe adding new information on the lewy body itself, since there was a large section just on the history of it. Overall, great article!