User:Vandycaj/Pulmonary fibrosis/Caroline.t1202 Peer Review

Hey, guys! Here is our peer review of your draft:


 * I enjoy how the introduction of the article includes a brief overview of various different sections that’ll be included in the article. For the epidemiology section, it will be important to add a citation to both of the paragraphs included and/or make sure the current sources are up to date (which I know there are notes about within the draft).
 * Overall, there is a lot of information within the draft, but only a couple sources. I think the table adds a great visual to show the incidence and prevalence rates of the disease, but the most recent date is to 2005. I am wondering if there is a more current statistic about this information.
 * I would delete the last sentence of the introduction though. The study mentioned doesn’t come up at any point throughout the article. I also don’t think single studies are allowed, much less one with mice as subjects.
 * Again multiple places in this section need sources. I was confused by the sentence: “Based on these rates, pulmonary fibrosis prevalence in the United States could range from more than 29,000 to almost 132,000, based on the population in 2000 that was 18 years or older.” Is it saying that in 2000, there were between 29,000 and 132,000 cases, or is it saying that if the population is the same in 2023 as it was in 2000 there would be between 29,000 and 132,000 cases in the United States?
 * You should also dig deeper into who gets the disease and why. Are there any genetic or environmental factors that lead to pulmonary fibrosis?

Thank you and great job!

Caroline Thompson, Ava Bedessem, John Holmberg

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.)