User:Vmae6172/Anton syndrome/Hannahbanka26 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Vmae6172/Anton syndrome


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Vmae6172/Anton_syndrome?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Anton syndrome

Evaluate the drafted changes
The lead is updated so that new content is reflected appropriately. The lead is intriguing and engaging, allowing the reader to know the topic and the subtopics. The introduction to each topic is very clear and concise providing enough information to know what you can expect from each section. The lead of certain topics such as history and presentation do a good job of presenting brief descriptions and information on the topic in a concise manner. There wasn’t too much information on the lead as most of it was found in the content section of the topics and the descriptions for each topic were kept short. The points and information presented in the lead were seen distributed appropriately throughout the different subtopics throughout the article.

The content added was relevant to the topic as more information was added to the pathophysiology, history and evaluation and diagnosis sections. They also created a prognosis and treatment and management section which are relevant to the topic. The references and content are all up to date. The content seems to be in the correct place concerning the topics. The content added seems to be up to date with new research and more information. A lot of sources used when updating the information were from papers within the past five years. The article does not deal with Wikipedia's equity gaps and doesn’t address the underrepresented populations or topics. There were no new images or media added to the article that enhanced the understanding of the topic.

The tone of the content added is neutral and presents no bias towards any position. The information is presented in 3rd person and the information remains factual with no viewpoints. The content does not create a bias or persuade a reader into a particular position. The overall article was well written with little to no grammar and spelling mistakes. The added content flowed appropriately with the previous content, so the tone was consistent throughout the entirety of the article. The organization of the content was good with appropriate headings and subheadings. The information under each section was detailed but not too wordy with a clear tone and easy to read.

The sources and references added were all backed up by reliable peer-reviewed sources. The cited sources are accurate to the reflected content and thorough. Almost all of the sources used are current with articles and journals dating from 2007 to 2023. All the links attached throughout the article are working and lead to the relevant topic. The use of in-text citations was found predominately at the end of large chunks of information or the end of sections and it would be recommended that more citations are used throughout the paragraph rather than just at the end. Also using multiple citations throughout the section instead of using one would make the information more diverse and reliable. The sources don’t have too much of a diverse spectrum of authors with most of the authors being male and the only source written by a female author.