User:Vumedgr/Coronary artery dissection/Stephhads 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? Vumedgr
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Talk:Spontaneous coronary artery dissection

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
The Lead section is easy to read (including for the non-medical reader). I think the first sentence could do a little bit of a better job describing the condition - perhaps you could switch the first and second sentences? The section successfully describes the condition in a concise manner. One small point - the introductory sentence says 80% of cases are in women but the signs/symptoms paragraph says it's 90%.

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?

Content evaluation
The causes section is particularly well-written and easy to read. The pathophysiology section is more complex (as is expected given the disease), but maybe could be broken up a little more and explained in lay terms in between the medical terminology. The diagnosis and management sections are excellent - they are thorough, up to date, and easy to read. It would be nice to have the epidemiology as prevalence in the overall population (and again, the percentage of women patients here is 80% - just for consistency sake I would double check that!). I would also include something about the overall mortality rate in the prognosis section.

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
The tone is neutral throughout and does not seem to have any particular bias. In terms of balance of information, I would probably try to bulk up the pathophysiology section a little more to make it slightly more clear what actually is going on in SCAD.

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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
A couple of the references are incomplete and just list the website URL - these are easy to edit if you just click on them and enter the page information! Otherwise, the references are diverse and extremely recent (many from 2019 which is awesome). The majority of articles I clicked on were open-access review articles, which is great.

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
Overall, the article is well-written, well-organized, and easy to read. The sections all make sense organizationally and provide a good flow to the article. One small grammatical thing - I would put the citations after the periods at the end of sentences.

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
It would be awesome to have an image of coronary artery dissection!

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
Overall, I think this is a great article. I think you've added a lot of important content. The diagnosis section is particularly impressive and looking back at old versions, you've done a lot of work to this segment! I think you've also made the article a lot easier to read as well, which is a difficult task given the complexity of the disease and pathophysiology.