User:Vitriaag8958/Neuroborreliosis/Ctrlaledlt 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? Vitriaag8958
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Vitriaag8958/Neuroborreliosis

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
I think the lead or overview were concise but almost too concise. I think it was a good overview because it was clear, but I believe you should expand that paragraph with maybe a thesis statement at the end considering signs and symptoms and diagnostics since you mention those too.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
The content of this article was relevant and up to date which is good! I think like I said previously maybe expand a little with the overview because you have a great flowing intro. As I was reading it I noticed you don't have a references specific heading, so I think its important you don't forget to separate your sources with your content so your content alone looks better. I think adding another category regarding statistics or facts or even charts or graphs would make the article look a lot more full and complete. Other than that I felt the content was good, well-written, and appropriate.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
I believe your tone of voice was good it was very informative and neutral, I personally didn't see any biased claims or attempts to persuade the reader of one position

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
The content was backed up with sources, and the sources are current. The links do work. this category seems fine to me

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
Like I previously mentioned I think you should try to expand a little more on your content or more information just so it can have all the information mostly necessary to inform someone of this disease. Some parts of the article I noticed you capitalized some words that don't need to be capitalized unless listed in the beginning of a sentence like (radiculopathy). I also saw a few incomplete sentences that can easily be expanded and maybe even turned into 2 or more sentences, so make sure you don't over use commas. Other than that organization was good!

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation
N/A

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?

New Article Evaluation
Yes, for the list of sources its simply missing its own heading

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
I felt you overall did a good job being informative, clear, non-biased and concise. I think since you have a tick borne disease, I'd suggest adding a picture of the tick that causes it or maybe images of what the disease looks like on different groups of people. It will make the article look good, but don't forget to cite those if you do! One suggestion, I'd say look up this disease in the CDC website, its a great primary source to get statistics, facts, or more information on this disease. Plus it can help you expand your content a little more and maybe you can add an important chunk of information, maybe even create headings for a "annual case report" or "global statistics" for this disease. Overall, it was a good first and new article! Good job:)