User:Maia.soderlund/Congenital Hypertrophy of the Retinal Pigmented Epithelium/MagnusY Peer Review

General info
Maia.soderlund (Maia Soderlund)
 * Whose work are you reviewing?
 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Maia.soderlund/Congenital_Hypertrophy_of_the_Retinal_Pigmented_Epithelium?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Does not exist.

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 your lead does a very good job of giving me an overview of the topics and what's most important about the topic. For example, you focus on why we care about it (because we could be at risk or cancer) instead of just random details about the topic. Your lead sentence adequately captures what CHRPE is.

However, I think you should maybe swap the last sentence and sentence before it. So "Procedures are done to help establish further understanding of what is to be done when traces of CHRPE are found through eye exams, with education being a top priority for patients who have the CHRPE lesions to help them determine what the next steps are. With this discovery, patients are highly encouraged to receive a colonoscopy in order to detect colorectal polyps, these often having high risks of being cancerous." It appears to me that the first part of the sentence is a general statement and then the second sentence focuses on specifics regarding that. However, if I am wrong about that, (I am very uneducated in these topics) then disregard this feedback.

Overall, the lead is concise and clearly describes your topic.

Content:

The "Development and Risk Factors" is bit brief (but it seems like you are still expending the article). But I like that you took the important parts of this section and put them in the lead. This section feels like an expansion of some sentences that were mentioned in the lead and that's a good thing.

For the "Signs and Symptoms" section, I think you should maybe put the list of the three separate versions of CHRPE into a more proper list format. Maybe a bullet list?

This is an almost trivial suggestion. However, I think you should have the citations at the end of your sentences (the numbers that link to your sources) be after the period. This occurs in the "Signs and Symptoms" section.

I think you did a good job of collecting many different sources and all of them appear to be reputable and up to date. Likewise, it appears your article is notable enough to be on Wikipedia and, by observing your sources, it looks like you took the steps to accurately represent the current literature on the topic.

You could link to other Wikipedia articles to yours more discoverable.

Overall, the content is relevant and up-to-date. Furthermore, the article seems unbiased.