User:Mburgon/Canthotomy/Azbeartx 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?
Mburgon

Link to draft you're reviewing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mburgon/Canthotomy/Azbeartx_Peer_Review?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_peer_review

Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
N/A

Evaluate the drafted changes

Lead- The lead is concise, well organized, and contains an introductory sentence that appropriately describes the article . It does not contain information that is not present elsewhere in the article. However, the lead does not contain information from each of the article's major sections. Specifically, there is no information in the lead from the contraindications, complications, or history sections. I think adding a few sentences in the lead to describe contraindications and potential complications would be helpful. Additionally, it may be helpful to include some of the other potential causes of orbital compartment syndrome besides trauma.

Content - The added content is extremely relevant to the topic and appears to be up-to-date with ongoing research. There was not any extraneous information within the article and there does not appear to be any significant information missing from the body of the article. Overall, I thought the article did a good job covering the major aspects of the topic without favoring any particular section.

Tone and Balance- The content of the article is well balanced and has appropriate tone. There was no attempt to persuade the reader to believe a certain way. When presented with the challenges of the current procedure, an alternative procedure was discussed as a topic of ongoing interest without specifically favoring one procedure over another.

Sources and References- The sources used to generate this article appear to be peer-reviewed review papers covering the topics. There are an appropriate number of sources and they are cited appropriately. The links within the reference page work and there appears to be sources cited ranging from the 1950s to as recently as last month. Overall, I think the cited sources are appropriate for the topic and I do not believe there is anything to add or change.

Organization- Overall the article is well organized and follows the pattern of many other wikipedia articles. My only recommendations are to consider moving the history section to below the lead. This would be optional but something I have seen elsewhere. In terms of stylistic changes to consider, the sentence: "Due to the emergent nature of this procedure and the possibility of restoring or preventing the loss of vision, globe rupture is the only absolute contraindication." may be changed to "Due to the emergent nature of this procedure and the possibility of restoring or preventing vision loss, globe rupture is the only absolute contraindication." The change is minimal but makes the sentence slightly easier to read. Finally, I think the technique section would be easier to organize and follow if organized using a table.

Images and Media - The added images definitely contribute to the article in a positive way. The images are well positioned in chronological order adjacent to the technique section. My only recommendation here is to consider adding which step of the procedure is being demonstrated within the image. I think the captions are appropriate but clearly labeling each picture with the numerical step may be helpful. Alternatively, if you organize your steps in a table like you mentioned you may just add the pictures to the appropriate row.

New Article Notes- This article uses several (11) appropriate sources which I believe qualifies as an exhaustive search through the literature. The article follows a similar format to other similar articles and links several other pages so that the page will be more discoverable. Overall, this will be a great addition to wikipedia.

Overall Impression- Overall this article was very well constructed and provides a concise yet thorough description of the topic. I think this will make a great addition to Wikipedia with only minimal modifications to consider.