User:Vandycaj/Pulmonary fibrosis/Megagertz916 Peer Review

General info
Vandycaj Sandbox Draft
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Vandycaj/Pulmonary_fibrosis?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Pulmonary fibrosis

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead:

At the end of the Lead section I noticed an addition that says "This article shows the effects of inhaling MWCNTs in the workplace. They conduct a study on rodents on a 90-day period to see the causes of this exposure." I find these couple of sentences to lack explanation and I am a bit confused about its connection to the topic. One thing that may help in this case is writing out the abbreviation of "MWCNT's."

Content:

It appears that the Treatment section of the student article does not contain any additional information that is not included in the main article. As the article sates, treatment options are very limited and many trials are experimental and ongoing. One addition that could be made is to describe some of these trials. Explaining these trials may help the reader understand why the disease is so difficult to treat.

Additionally, the Epidemiology section does not appear to contain any edits. As it is highlighted in the main article, there is a need for updated data after 2000. This data could be expanded upon in regards to COVID-19 and I could see potential for some interesting connections to be made.

Tone:

The tone is neutral and objective.

Sources:

There are quite a few spots in the draft article that lack sources that exist in the main article. I would recommend double checking the copy and pasting of the article sections so that the sources get pulled into the draft from the main article. I would also make sure that the added section about the rodent study has a linked source.

Organization:

The overall organization makes sense for the article and the main article seems to provide an adequate outline to work off of.

Overall Impressions:

A good start has been made to revising this article. I would be interested to see what else could be updated in the Epidemiology section especially because it seems that section is less flushed out in the main article.