User:SKXu/Gestational choriocarcinoma/Jxamz Peer Review

#1

Has the lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?

Yes. They added more references to the lead that are more current.

Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes description of the article’s major sections?

Somewhat. The group could have added more hyperlinks to the section since some of the jargon can be too scientific to the average reader.

Does the lead include information that is not present in the article?

No.

Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?

The lead is concise.

'''#2 Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement? [explain]'''

Yes. The group has added a sufficient amount of sources and information to the article. The The visual aid for the FIGO Scoring System was a good addition to give breathe from all of the text.

#3 Do the edits reflect language that supports diversity, equity, and inclusion?

Somewhat. The article speaks more generally on the population, but it does not account for the differences of how this disease may affect different groups differently. For example, is incidence rate the same across all of the demographics? “Women” can also be changed to people with uteri because this disease may also affect trans or non-binary people who may or may not identify as women.

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.)