User:Vandycaj/Pulmonary fibrosis/Cadence.m3 Peer Review

Lead

While reading the new wiki page and the original one on Pulmonary fibrosis, I don't see any differences in the lead. It looks like the sources were taken out of the original document so it may be helpful to update those sources if they were meant to be taken out. The lead in general seems to be very direct which is useful. It looks like a study was added at the very end of the lead which is a great addition, but it may do better in a different section, possibly a work related section, and it may need a bit more of a lead in so we know what the study is about and why it's significant.

Content

The content of the new student article contains treatment and epidemiology, which are great sections to add. The original article has a few more sections which may need some editing but these two are a good start. Within these two sections I don't see any updated information from the original doc. To update these it could use some new sources. One could be why is lung transplantation the only therapeutic option in severe cases? Is there possibly a study that was done to prove that or are there results from a lung transplant? The next sentence might also need a source. Was there a study done proving the drugs slow the process of the disease? The epidemiology section is also the same as the original article. I read on the original wikipedia that it needs to have more prevalent information. I think the table is great but it needs some recent statistics. Also it might need to have more broad information, there are only certain counties represented which can come to a conclusion that is not representative of the entire population.

Tone

Tone seems to be very neutral throughout.

Sources

There seems to be some missing sources from the document. There are some parts that say citation needed so thats a great start. I believe it would be best to add a citation in the lead proving where this information came from. The treatment sources I listed above, but it would be useful to update some of the outdated info in the graph.

Organization and Images

I think if you decide to add back in the other sections from the original doc it would be useful to set it up with lead, causes, signs and symptoms, epidemiology, treatment, and prognosis. The images are really nice in the original as well, I think those would be helpful to keep.

Overall

Overall, great start. I think some tweaking of the original doc and source addition and updating would be very helpful. Good job so far!

General info
(provide username)
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


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

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.)