User:Segregg/Valvular heart disease/Bdbwiki1990 Peer Review

Peer review for Segregg
Overall, this article is written well and in a way that reads simply. I did not feel that the content was biased at any point when reading and the sources provided are reliable. Additionally, one of the strengths of this article is the organization of the contents and succinct explanations of the different types of valvular heart diseases. The lead section is broad and to the point. I actually prefer that the written portion is brief and that this section ends with a very organized content table that leads the reader into a very clear outline of the main points made in the article.

You have done an excellent job adding many reputable sources to this page. I do think that there are large parts of discussion where no sources have been included (examples: “Types” lead introduction, “aortic and mitral valve disorders”). Some of this is due to a more definitional description of terms, like “stenosis”, but I do think there is room for improvement here. A few sections could still be expanded upon, such as “Dysplasia” and “Epidemiology”, but overall, the content of this article is very helpful.

You discussed in your talk page the comparison table is difficult to read and I agree with you. The content within it is helpful, but also very dense and it seems to be overwhelming and in ways takes away from the rest of the clean, concise aspects of this article.

Finally, I really liked reading the "treatment" section. The opening line is very succinct and easy to read, while each section that discusses the specific diseases is clear and to the point.

~