User:MyDogsBestie/Congenital malaria/Purplesquire Peer Review

General info
MyDogsBestie
 * Whose work are you reviewing?
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:MyDogsBestie/Congenital malaria
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Congenital malaria

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead

The lead includes good general information, and forms a good summary of the topic, however a lot of the information is not also in other sections. This could be fixed by creating a section on "diagnosis" for example, and maybe moving the info on maternal prophylaxis treatments to a treatment section.

Content

The content added definitely helps and adds more context. However, the info on maternal malaria feels off-topic. It might need to be re-written to connect more directly to congenital malaria or be left out of the article.The prevalance from the newer papers could be added, even if the reason for the discrepancy isn't found, because the more up-to-date information can be assumed to be better. As far as additions, a section on treatment or diagnosis could help fill out the article.

Tone

The tone feels properly neutral.

Sources

The sources look good, they are scientific articles, and seem in-date and reliable. The main question I have is why source 2 is cited for the first statement, as that old a paper isn't the best to cite inormation about the disease, and the historical claim is being cited from a different source.

Organization

Overall, the organization is great, it feels very easy to read. The biggest hangup is the paragraph on maternal malaria that feels a bit out of place.