User:VPedigo/Viral meningitis/Amyhuang1 Peer Review

General info

 * My name is Amy and I am reviewing VPedigo's work.
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Viral meningitis

Lead evaluation

Overall, I thought the Lead section was adequate at introducing the topic and not overly detailed. According to the Talk page, VPedigo planned to update the epidemiology statistics in the Lead section because the existing statistics were from 1988-1999. The author has successfully done so, and the statistics have been updated with several sources (i.e. one from 2012, one from 2017).

I thought there were a few ways in which the Lead section could be improved. For instance, the introductory sentence is somewhat confusing. While the introductory sentence states that viral meningitis is synonymous with aseptic meningitis, the "Aseptic meningitis" article states that it can be caused by "viruses, mycobacteria, spirochetes, fungi, medications...", which suggests that viral meningitis is not synonymous aseptic meningitis and instead falls under a larger umbrella term. In addition, I thought that a few symptoms and signs could be mentioned in the Lead section.

Signs and Symptoms evaluation

Overall, I thought that this section was very strong; it was detailed, organized, and accessible to readers. VPedigo planned to make this section easier to read and add information about Cushing’s Triad, both of which were done. I particularly like that mechanisms for certain signs and symptoms were explained.

The only criticism that I have for this section is that the sentence “In severe cases, people may experience concomitant encephalitis (meningoencephalitis), which is suggested by symptoms such as altered mental status, seizures, or focal neurologic deficits” appears twice with two sentences in between.

Mechanism evaluation:

VPedigo planned to add information about the susceptibility of certain populations, which is now discussed in depth, and a video, which is also present. I particularly liked the addition of the video, which I think does a good job of giving an overview of meningitis in an engaging way.

Diagnosis evaluation:

VPedigo planned to a picture of a lumbar puncture and add a paragraph discussing the differential diagnosis for viral meningitis, both of which were done. I think that hyperlinks could be added to each disease entity under in the “further considerations” sentence, but this is a very minor point.

Treatment and Epidemiology evaluation:

A paragraph about possible hospital intervention and more updated epidemiology statistics were both added as planned. Under the epidemiology section, I do wonder why more adults were affected in the viral meningitis outbreak in Romania and Spain when it is also stated in the same paragraph that children tend to be more affected than adults. Perhaps more explanation could be given with regards to that outbreak. Also “While, people aged younger than 15 made up 33.8% of cases” is a fragment.

Overall evaluation

Overall, VPedigo made some excellent contributions to this article. The content that was added is relevant, up-to-date, accessible, and well-organized. I particularly like the media that was added to the article; both the video and picture make the article more engaging. I think that adding the updated information about epidemiology was particularly important and helpful, considering that the incidence of cases each year is increasing (per the article). As for criticisms, note my above comments. Great job!