User:88meded/Exploratory laparotomy/ACMetro Peer Review
Peer review
[edit]I am a member of the WikiProject class that is involved in editing this article, and will be providing peer review of the page.
Lead Section: The introductory sentence is concise and describes the article topic in a single sentence. The subsequent summary section is currently a single sentence which may be more readable if broken up into shorter sentences. A brief expansion of this section may also be helpful to summarize the new topics that were added as part of this class.
Organization: The overall organization is clear with appropriate headings and subheadings. Appropriate transitions are used between sections that make it clear and readable. I also really like how you organized the “additional maneuvers” section into a table; I think that is a great way to present that information.
Content: The article covers info relevant to the topic and includes relevant links to help the reader gain background understanding of the terms used in the body of the article (particularly important for an anatomy-heavy page such as this). I think the additions that you’ve made so far (such as adding sections on outcomes and recovery) are really helpful for rounding out the page. Two very small details that may need to be addressed are:
- Red text: “bowel repair” (page does not exist)
- Link to “iliac arteries” (disambiguation needed)
Tone: Neutral coverage of the topic, language is formal and appropriate.
References: Most statements have appropriate sources, but a few statements at the end of paragraphs or bulleted lists have unclear sourcing. Most sources used are appropriate (good mix of textbooks and review articles), and the references include are complete in their citation. However, there are still a handful of primary sources listed (currently references # 11, 12, 13).