User:Soupoftheday7/Coffee ground vomiting/Lightfixture13 Peer Review

Peer review

Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects:

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?

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?
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

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?

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
Are the sources current?
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
Check a few links. Do they work?

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?

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?

For New Articles Only

If the draft you're reviewing is for a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.

Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

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?

Examples of good feedback

A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.

Peer review of "Homemaking"
Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Additional Resources

Check out the Editing Wikipedia PDF for general editing tips and suggestions.

General info

Whose work are you reviewing?

Soupoftheday7

Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Soupoftheday7/Coffee ground vomiting
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): Coffee ground vomiting

Evaluate the drafted changes

Lead

Lead has been improved to reflect content changes. I think it's good as is, but you could consider clarifying that most cases are caused by slow upper GI bleeds. I think a picture somewhere in the article would be helpful.

Content

The Causes section is significantly improved from the original. There's a typo, "Duoenal." At the end of this section, you mention "Non-gastrointestinal causes have also been documented." Consider including some examples.

I would rename the Diagnosis section to Evaluation and highlight at the beginning that coffee ground emesis isn't a medical emergency by itself. Then I would state that the initial workup is aimed at assessing clinical stability to determine acuity of next steps. I would also reiterate something like "since most cases of coffee ground emesis are signs of GI bleeding, it is important to localize the source" before your discussion of endoscopy. There's a typo "a camera ins inserted."

I would rename the Treatment section to Management and mention the most important aspect is identifying the source and stopping the bleed. You could also mention symptomatic treatment e.g. PPIs, diet, anemia or hemodynamic instability precautions if endoscopy is deferred.

Consider adding an Epidemiology section where you can discuss prevalence and risk factors for upper GI bleeds. What percentage of UGI bleeds present with coffee ground emesis? I'd also be curious to know the most common cause by %.

Tone and balance

Neutral and balanced.

Sources and references

Credible sources used.

Organization

Well written with only the typos listed above. Suggestions on section renaming as above.

Images and media

None added but I think the article would benefit from an example picture.