User:Swk152419/Arachnoiditis/Mattm824 Peer Review

General info
I am reviewing Swk152419 article on arachnoiditis.
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Swk152419/Arachnoiditis:
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Arachnoiditis

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead

The lead includes an introductory sentence which makes it very easy to understand what arachnoiditis is in simple terms. I have noticed that the introduction was simplified from its original form which makes it much more readable.

Organization

The article is much better organized after the changes that you have made. There are more sections that are divided into less wordy segments which makes it very readable. I think breaking it down by background, etiology, pathogenesis, and signs and symptoms is the perfect way to approach this article in a readable manner. The etiologies are clearly listed without extra words that could add confusion. Excellent work!

Tone and Balance

The tone of the content is very neutral. The words are understandable and not overly complex. My only recommendation would be to remove the term "extremely" as a more professional word can be utilized.

Sources and References

Most of the content that is added is up to date, there are a few older articles from 2001. I recognize that many of these articles are older because the main contribution in this space might have been written years ago. However, if there is newer literature available, I recommend updating it if possible. The sources come from reviews and secondary literature and are very strong articles. Many articles were added which adds to the strength of the content.

Overall Feedback

The organization of the article is excellent,. Overall, I would say that the content that is added is excellent and has greatly contributed to the article. I believe these edits make a compelling argument to upgrade this article from start class. Great work!