User talk:Cjkrome/sandbox

Joseph Katz

Peer review

1. Lead section is good. It does an excellent job explaining what the article is going to be about without becoming overburdened with details.

2. Sections are well organized and flow logically

3. The article is unbiased and reflects the cited sources. Each section is of reasonable length, though the relevancy to humans section could be cut down a bit.

4. The neutrality of this article could be slightly improved. The word unfortunately should be removed from the start of the symptoms section, and the phrase "very important" is somewhat overused. Overall though, the article succeeds in being impartial.

5. No citations are visible and there is no bibliography.

In general, I think this article is really good and pretty close to done. If you want, you can change the format of your title to make it larger and more title-ly. You should definitely add a bibliography and citations to the paper.