User:Smguzman/Diffuse infantile fibromatosis/Slosea Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Smguzman, Helendhuynh, Matthew.Lee4, and Alukyo1


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Diffuse infantile fibromatosis (no draft provided)


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Diffuse infantile fibromatosis

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.)


 * 1) Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”?
 * 2) * The group's edits have improved the article by providing substance. An area that needs some work is the lead or intro section which is very short and does not summarize or reflect the updated/added information in the other sections. While causes and clinical characteristics are touched on, the diagnosis, treatment and management, and outcomes sections are not touched on. I think the group has some missed opportunities to add links to other wiki pages to clarify some terminology as well such as desmoid tumor, autosomal traits, infantile myofibromatosis, and others. There is quite a bit of more complicated medical terminology that would likely be helpful if explained or simplified if possible, or add a wiki link to an explanatory page. Also, the signs and symptoms section is quite a big paragraph which may be best split up for easier reading.
 * 3) Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement?
 * 4) *The group succeeded in added information in the 12 sections they had proposed to, each with its own section header. While some sections are much briefer than others and could possibly be combined (diagnosis+screening or treatment/management+outcomes) each had relevant and useful information provided. The article now provided a much more detailed explanation of the condition.
 * 5) PART A: Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view?
 * 6) * The current article appears to reflect a neutral point of view with many sections to ensure all facets of the condition are discussed. However, the editors should be careful of the use of terminology such as "patients".