User:Thompsok3094/Hyperthermia/Acklck9798 Peer Review

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? Thompsok3094
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Hyperthermia

Content evaluation
The three new sections add a lot of good information to the epidemiology aspect of the article. In the who and time portion of the users sandbox the cases sited are from 2019, which is good to keep the information relevant. It might be good to label the case study with a different title rather than who and time to better fit the information. I like how you included a case study it helps show evidence of the information you stated.

In the where section the content is up to date and overall very informational. When the end of the paragraph starts talking about minimum mortality temperature a little more information on that as well as a source may help explain the phenomenon.

The "How" section content is very informational but could use more context on the different types of heat stroke (classical and exertional). The last sentence seems a little cut off from the information before it, it would maybe fit better in a different part of the paragraph.

Tone and balance evaluation
The added information holds a very neutral viewpoint that is kept very factual. The second to last sentence in the who and time section has a more of an opinion tone rather than a factual tone. Restructuring the sentence and/or adding a citation to the sentence may help with stating that socioeconomic status effects assess to cooler temperatures.

Sources and references evaluation
In the who and time section, it might be good to add a citation after listing what groups are susceptible to hyperthermia. For the "How" section a source would be good behind both the 1st and 2nd sentence to back up the information being presented. In this same section I would recommend also providing more sources on the two types of heat stroke (classical and exertional) to show where that information is from.

Organization evaluation
In the "where" section there are a few grammatical errors. After citation 5 a period should be included. Also the sentence after citation 5 (starting with " the fact that northern cities...) may work better if reworded as well as cited with a source being that the information stated should be backed up.

Overall evaluation
Overall the content added is really good and does a great job of refraining from bias. Doing a read through to catch any weirdly worded sentences may be helpful before publishing just to fix a few of the sentences that may need to be reworded. The information added helps a lot with the topic and does help explain the epidemiology of the topic. Good job!