User:Rgrosland/Krabbe Disease/Limeturtle11 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? Rgrosland
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Rgrosland/Krabbe_Disease&oldid=926786295

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
The lead has not been updated, however I do not really believe that this needs to be done since there is already an epidemiology headline in the contents section.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
Overall, good and relevant information added to the epidemiology section. In some cases, where specific numbers are referenced from cases, the matching citations need to be added. The content added is up-to-date (2007, 2017, and 2019).

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The content added to the epidemiology section was both neutral and remained unbiased, which is great. Only the facts are stated, leading to a better updated article.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
Most content was backed up by sources. All sources used are reliable and from the past decade (awesome!), however, more citations should be added to sentences involving numbers and percentages from these studies. All links that are in the references work, so that is also good.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
The content added is well-written and easy to read. I did not find any spelling or grammatical errors when looking over the content. The content jumps around many times to different facts, so I would try to make it flow a little better or add sections if need be.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
The content has improved the overall quality of the article by adding a more in depth epidemiology section with more information readily available to the reader. Many great facts are added using articles that are very current. The content added contains numerous informative facts relating to the topic, however, this content could be improved by adding more citations along with attempting to make the facts flow a little better together.