User:Rebjmcd/Mesangial proliferative glomerulonephritis/Jab0912 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(provide username)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

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.)

Whose work are you reviewing? Rebjmcd

Peer Review

Lead: From another medical student I thought the lead was really strong. It informed what it was, what can cause it, etc. I'd be concerned with how well people who are not coming from a medical field could follow it, but I imagine those people aren't reading this topic anyways.

Content: I really like the fact that there are so many links to various terms in the article, especially the various nephrological diseases associated with the topic. Makes it friendly for people without a strong medical background.

I think you could go into more detail on the presentation specifically with a section on clinical presentation that covers more symptoms etc. Or you could potentially go into more detail on how they come up with a diagnosis with a little more on the tests and what other conditions it could be that present similarly.

Tone and balance:

Tone is appropriate and unbiased

Sources and references:

There is a spot that indicates a citation is needed which I assume means you're planning on adding one in that spot. Otherwise the article is properly cited both within the article and in the references section.

Organization:

If it were me I might split up the clinical presentation into it's own subheading just to make it easier for someone who may be reading the page just to find something specific.

Images and media:

I like the image you chose because it provides a good visualization of what could be happening if you pair it with your description. It also makes it easier to visualize the anatomy and how that relates to the disease process.

Overall impressions:

Overall I think it is a good article that does a nice job of fleshing out and explaining a disease process that is pretty complicated and hard to explain. It is hard to say whether explaining things in more detail would help as it really depends on how strong the reader's medical background is. I especially like the summary in the lead and the visual aid