User:Mpf53/Sickle cell disease/Meghanmcq Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Mpf53


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Mpf53/Sickle cell disease
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Sickle cell disease

Evaluate the drafted changes
Firstly, the citations all look like they are in good format and the links are working properly. Additionally, it seems that they are all reputable sources and many are research articles.

Overall, I think all of the information presented is relevant and related to the topic of choice. I would just say maybe add a title to heading to the page because I understood after starting to reach that it seemed more about SCD in Uganda and the social stigma than about SCD more generally, but I think heading that clearly states the topic would be helpful. From looking at the SCD page, I am assuming this would be going under the section for Africa to expand on SCD in Uganda.

I think in some cases throughout the draft, there are sentences that are really great and informative, but seem like potentially they are missing a source because it does not seem like general or commonly known knowledge, like "For example, people from Eastern Uganda tend to be more aware than Western Ugandans." or a large portion of the second paragraph, "Generally, the knowledge about the disease in Uganda is weak. While most people have heard generally about the disease, a large portion of the population is relatively misinformed about how SCD is diagnosed or inherited.....". I think there should be some sort of cited source in there at least for a few of those sentences unless it is actually common knowledge.

This draft is really well written and researched and I think it gets to the point really well. I do think at the end there could be a bit more of a conclusion, as it feels like the draft dropped off just a little. Overall, thought I felt like your writing flowed really well and there was a clear narrative and transition from each paragraph that made it easy to read and understand.

Lead:

- it hasn't been updated, maybe see if there is a need to update it given the new information you are providing

Content: all relevant and cohesive, very clear writing and narrative

Tone: Overall, there was a very balanced and unbiased tone throughout, though there are some statements made that do need a clear source provided, as at the moment they seem more like personal statements than research backed claims.

Sources: well formatted, good sources, links are functional

Organization: overall very good flow and writing style that is clear and understandable, I felt like I learned something through reading this.

Overall Impressions: I think the authors found a really important and pertinent knowledge gap within the existing wiki article and found a lot of good research and information that can expand upon the current article's section. I also think it is a very relevant and current issue that is being covered. Additionally, minus a few necessary citations changes/additions, I feel like the addition was really well written and conveys a clear point concisely. I also think addition of links to other wiki pages throughout the draft would be good, as that tends to be something that is done in other wikis.