User:LDavis5/Neonatal withdrawal/J.Jones UCSF Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Group 16


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Neonatal withdrawal
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Evaluate the drafted changes
Group 15's edits substantially improved the article by using simple and concise language, but not omitting any details or other relevant information to the topic. The topics on Diagnosis (Assessment) and Epidemiology bring light to the current limitations of available diagnostic tools and the evolving landscape of this syndrome; discussing the need for further research in this area is a valuable piece of the article. This article now contains complete and accurate information for readers.

Group 15 met the majority of their goals for the article. Notably, the article has many sources which seem to be reliable and diverse. The group also achieved their goals by adding information on side effect prevalence, defining the two types of NAS in the article lead, and expanding upon the causes of NAS.

Overall, the article uses language that promotes diversity, equity, and inclusion. There are no instances of using the word "patients;" instead, the terms infant and neonate are used to describe the afflicted individual. Given the nature of this topic, it is challenging to use strictly gender-neutral language. Perhaps, consider limiting the use of the term "mothers" since it carries an emotional conotation, and replace it with "pregnant women" or "women who gave birth." Additionally, "baby" may be replaced with "infant" or "neonate" for article consistency.