User:PartTimeClimber/Diffuse infiltrative lymphocytosis syndrome/Crookshankx Peer Review

General info
PartTimeClimber
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PartTimeClimber/Diffuse_infiltrative_lymphocytosis_syndrome?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Diffuse infiltrative lymphocytosis syndrome

Evaluate the drafted changes
This is awesome Paul!

Lead

 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes. The lead has been updated to include an introductory sentence, descriptions of the major sections, and is sufficiently detailed. One thing to improve conciseness would be to remove the mention of other structures DILS can impact in the first paragraph of the lead section since you mention it again in the second paragraph. Another very small comment I have would be to maybe add reduction of CD4+ cells with HIV somewhere in the lead section (or even in pathophysiology). You have a link to HIV article which would provide the info but it might be nice to have it here as well.

Content

 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Absolutely, you do a great job of hitting on all the important subsections for DILS with enough detail. I especially like that under the signs and symptom section, you separate each organ system into its own paragraph which makes it a lot easier to reference. You also provide links to topics within your article which is so helpful.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, most of your articles are within the last 10 years and the ones that are older than that are still supported by current research.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I think you've hit on the major points for the syndrome. One suggestion I have is to expand the prognosis paragraph to maybe include why DILS leads to the protective benefit. You could also consider adding that most cases of DILS were before HAART development as mentioned in the Ghrenassia et al review.
 * Very small comment: you could consider leaving out the specific amino acid sequences associated with DILS. It might be a little more than the general reader needs to know.

Tone and Balance

 * Is the content added neutral? Since this isn't a particularly divisive topic, I don't think this really comes into play as much but yes, you do a great job of remaining objective. In all the sections, you make clear when something isn't well-understood or if there is a directly causative link. A good example is the pathophysiology section where you summarize the current understanding of what causes DILS.
 * One place where you could maybe change around the language is in the prognosis section where you talk about DILS protective benefits and add that the data to support are lacking per Ghrenassia et al. Unless I missed the support for it in other research!
 * Also when you say it's "not commonly a cause of death", is that if the patient is on appropriate HAART therapy or even without?

Sources and References

 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, the resources are all from reputable and reliable secondary sources. You have included citations appropriately throughout the article. I didn't see places missing citations.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? Looking through your sources, I can tell that you have multiple sources supporting similar findings. From what I can tell, you have done a good job of summarizing the pertinent information.
 * Are the sources thorough? Yes, they are in depth reviews about DILS and how the syndrome has changed throughout history.
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, they all work.

Organization

 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, very easy to read even with the necessary jargon. It's overall well organized. The comment I have for general layout/flow of the article would be to consider moving the history and epidemiology sections after the lead. Just a suggestion though and it's possible that you were going to do that anyway!
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No glaring ones that I could spot really.

Overall impressions

 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Undoubtedly. Originally, it was a few sentences and you really put together a complete and rounded out summary for someone wanting to know about DILS.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Easy to read with multiple subsections that contain enough information to provide a starting point but not overwhelm the reader. The resources you used can easily be used by the reader to get more information.