User:Tmurph525/Nephritic syndrome/SteveKong3 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? Tmurph525
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Nephritic syndrome

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? I feel like the introductory sentence in the lead is a good start as it talks about how Nephritic Syndrome is a syndrome (collection of signs and symptoms) rather than a disease itself and that is comprised of signs of nephritis. However, I think the introductory sentence would have also been an ideal place to highlight how the collection of symptoms really comes down to hematuria and varying degree of proteinuria. Also, maybe somewhere in the lead, it could have been mentioned that there are multiple underlying diseases that can cause Nephritic Syndrome.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Overall, I feel like it did a good job of talking about the signs and symptoms and the fact that Nephritic Syndrome is caused by nephritis. However, perhaps more could have been added to the pathophysiology, treatment, and prognosis of the disease in the lead section.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Yes, I feel like it is ideal length and information for the purpose of the wiki page.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, I really appreciated how simple and concise the signs and symptoms were. I feel that it is very relevant and people who may not have the most extensive medical knowledge can follow with this. However, I feel like maybe you can include a simple sentence saying how not all of the signs and symptoms are necessary to meet the diagnosis of nephritic syndrome. Also, I felt that the sentence on proteinuria could have included again that nephrotic range is >3.5g/day and that the main difference between nephrotic and Nephritic Syndrome is that with nephrotic syndrome you do not typically have hematuria. (Although some conditions which are more typically associated with Nephritic Syndrome such as post infectious and infection-associated glomerulonpheritis, membranoproliferazive glomerulonephritis, and IgA nephropathy can sometimes develop nephrotic syndrome).
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, I felt like the content accurately reflected up-to-date content.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I think It would have been useful to include more information on other laboratory tests that are commonly done for patients suspected of Nephritic Syndrome including Anti-dsDNA, serology for hepatitis C Virus, hepatitis B Virus, and HIV, and serum free light chains and serum immunofixation.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, I feel like it was very well written with neutral content that was informative.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, there does not appear to be any heavily biassed comments.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Overall, no. However, if I had to pick one, I think perhaps including one sentence in the "invasive testing" section on how although kidney biopsy can provide a definitive diagnosis, kidney biopsy is not always required if a diagnosis can be made via serology ie. membranous nephropathy associated with positive anti-phospholipase A2 receptor autoantibodies) or if patient has normal kidney function, normal serological tests, hematuria with low-grade proteinuria and is unlikely to start specific treatment. I am also not entirely positive how much focus is on controlling elevated blood pressure. Yes, I recognize that blood pressure control can be one of the focuses in treating a patient with Nephritic Syndrome however, from sources on UpToDate patients with rapidly progressive glomerulonephritis, hypertension is most often absent or mild.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, for the most part I feel that the new content that was added is back up by reliable secondary source information. However, I did notice that not all sentences in the treatment, prognosis, and epidemiology (which appears to have been the focus of the new content that was added) does not have sources to back up each claim.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, I felt like overall, it is a good reflection of the available literature. However, I think maybe more diverse sources could have been used. For example, although I think that it is perfectly fine to have based most of the epidemiology section on the CDC report on death done in 2017, perhaps adding other sources besides just the CDC report could have been enlightening.
 * Are the sources current? Yes.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, I felt like it was very well organized. I particularly liked how the different causes were very logically laid out with different causes for children/adolescents vs adults. I also feel like the epidemiology section was very nicely updated. I also liked the fact that the diagnosis section was also very logically organized between physical exam, laboratory testing, and invasive test.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes, the article has image of hematuria, anatomical kidney, and Purpura associated with HSP.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes, I thought the image captions were appropriate.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? I think that the anatomical kidney may be better placed under the pathophysiology section. I also think maybe adding a picture of the widened podocyte from a kidney biopsy would have been great.

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes, I feel like the pathophysiology, diagnosis, and epidemiology sections in particular have been well updated.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? I think that the organization of the page and individual sections is very well executed.
 * How can the content added be improved? I think the prognosis section could be updated even more to include more information. Perhaps include that rapid response for Nephritic Syndrome caused by RPGN is very important for better prognosis and how SLE's prognosis is very good as it responds favorably to treatment.

Overall evaluation
Overall, I feel like Taylor did an excellent job of updating the wiki page on Nephritic Syndrome to include more relevant and up-to-date information. I also really like the organization of the page and feel like it definitely help to bring information to the targeted audience.