Readability - Some sections could be improved in terms of readability for the audience. Some examples that could be rephrased: "artificial diagnostic criterion" and "propensity to not consider neurodegenerative causes" in the Diagnosis section. In the Overview section, you may want to better describe the meaning of terms like cognitive decline, executive function, and degenerative. "Heterogenous" might also be too advanced. In the Disease course section, you may want to explain "decreased cognitive reserve" and maybe "verbal fluency", but that term might be okay for a lay person. Overall, your phrasing in these examples makes sense from a medical background but may need to be made more readable for the general audience. I like how you have a lot of topics linked to other articles.
Adherence to topic / Not getting off track - Good, the article is relevant to the topic throughout.
Organization & Flow - Follows a logical organization and flow of ideas. Maybe consider adding a section on pathophysiology and/or treatment/management.
Use of images and figures - N/A
Proper use of citations - Overall good, with most facts having citations. You may want to consider adding citations to the last sentences in the Overview and Terminology sections.
Paraphrasing - Good! Everything seems appropriately paraphrased from the source material.
Quality Sources, i.e. resources open to the public - Sources are good in quality and are reviews from peer-reviewed scientific journals.
Check for bias and equal-sided arguments - Good, everything is in a neutral, un-biased tone.
I think the lead needs to be longer, containing an overview of information from the entire article, rather than just an introductory statement.
