User:SKXu/Gestational choriocarcinoma/S.Li, UCSF Peer Review


 * 1) Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”?
 * 2) A lead section is easy to understand - somewhat, I think there are a lot of scientific terms, if you can add more layman terms or explain what the scientific terms mean. For example, what is hCG?
 * 3) Clear structure - Yes, maybe you can add subheaders in each heading so it doesn’t look like one huge paragraph. For example, adding subheaders for the guidelines
 * 4) Balanced coverage - yes, all sections have a lot of info
 * 5) Neutral content - yes
 * 6) Reliable sources - yes
 * 7) Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement?
 * 8) Yes, they added lots of information compared to the 2021 version
 * 9) Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view?
 * 10) Yes, I don’t feel persuaded about anything after reading the article. The language used in the article is not arguing for any point of view and is informational.

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.)