1. Quality of Information: 2 
 2. Article size: 1 
 As of Novemeber 18, article was 1,100 bytes short of minimum. 
 3. Readability: 1 
 Some sections such as Pathophysiology, Mechanism, etc. were too technical - laypeople need to be able to read it. 
 4. Refs: 2 
 5. Links: 2 
 6. Responsive to comments: 2 
 No comments on page yet. 
 7. Formatting: 2 
 8. Writing: 1  
 Contained a few typos, grammar/syntax mistakes, and one link included an underscore (club_foot) 
 9. used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2 
 10. Outstanding: 2 
 Really great article! Included pictures were a fantastic addition, just make sure to hit the minimum bytes for the final article. 
 ___________ 
 Total: 17 out of 20 
 Reviewed by