User:Lilsunchip/Monoarthritis/MyDogsBestie Peer Review

General info
Lilsunchip
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Lilsunchip/Monoarthritis
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Monoarthritis

Evaluate the drafted changes

 *  Lead Section 
 * The lead section of your article so far does describe the content of your article because it gives a couple causes and then goes into the actual causes section.
 * The lead section is more of a lead sentence, it doesn't go into too much detail so it is concise and to the point. I do think it can be expanded upon (i.e. adding some statistics, going into the diagnostic tools, etc.)
 *  Content 
 * The content that was added is relevant to the topic and up to date.
 * The treatment section is missing but that's understandable for a draft.
 *  Tone and Balance 
 * The tone is neutral, and there's no taking sides anywhere in the article.
 *  Sources and References 
 * For your second and fourth sources, you need to add a date its super easy to do just find it in your article and then hover over one of your [2] and [4] and hit the "Edit" button then find the date and put it in YYYY-MM-DD.
 * Your 4th source, when clicking the link brings up a Page Does not Exist error, but i was able to find it with some digging around.
 * Sources aren't super current (the one is from 1998, but I get using older articles) but two out of four are pretty current.
 * But other than that, the sources are current, thorough, and the content accurately reflects the articles given.
 *  Organization 
 * The organization of the article is good, the lead section details the causes and it pretty much follows that quite well.
 *  Images and Media 
 * There aren't any but that's okay mine doesn't have any either.
 *  Overall Impressions 
 * The article is pretty good in my opinion, it's definitely improved.
 * I do think that you can add a section in on say the statistics and expand on the treatments section, that'd be super cool to see.
 * I noticed you rewrote most of the causes and i think that's a big improvement because the ones before had no sources, no reputable claims, just what seems to be unsourced opinion.