User:Abluejay19/Intracerebral hemorrhage/Anesthesiastudent2024 Peer Review

General info
Abluejay19
 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Intracerebral hemorrhage
 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Abluejay19/Intracerebral hemorrhage:
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Evaluate the drafted changes
'''1. First, what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that described the subject in a clear way?'''

The lead of this article is excellent. I believe it is concise and to the point, yet jam-packed with high-yield very important information (definition, risk factors, treatment, epidemiology). I did not find any superfluous knowledge in these introductory paragraphs. I was very impressed overall by how well this complex topic was written with few jargon or terminology that I think would be unfamiliar to those not in the medical field - anything that was "jargony" was hyperlinked to another article for more in depth explanation.

'''2. What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement?'''

One suggestion for the article is regarding the "Signs and symptoms" section (I can't remember if you had mentioned wanting to remove that or keep it but tweak it...), but I feel like this section has alot of jargon. And like you mentioned in one of the meetings, the signs and symptoms of a stroke could be anything. One potential idea is to mention only the main signs/symptoms (while acknowledging in the article that there are numerous more) that are often taught to the general public, ie. the "BE FAST" mnemonic for "Balance, Eyes, Facial drooping, Arm weakness, Speech difficulty, Time to call 911" -- though this is probably not academic enough. Are there any reviews or articles out there looking into the effectiveness of this mneumonic for the general public? I feel like it's taught in alot of different settings. I've even had a guest speaker come to my church, which has a lot of elderly attendees, and they taught this.

I think changes to this section of the article would be an improvement because it would improve readability of the article if you're trying to continue with your goal of making it non-medical professional friendly. I think also if an individual who is not health literate is looking up a stroke, there could be a high chance they could be wondering if they or a loved one is experiencing a stroke, so that section would be very important.

3. What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?

I think the most important thing that could be improved in this article is the "Signs and symptoms" section of the article, as described above. Tweaking this section would improve readability of the article and make it non-medical professional friendly. If an individual who is not health literate is looking up a stroke, there could be a high chance they could be wondering if they or a loved one is experiencing a stroke, so that section would be very important.

'''4. Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Let them know!'''

This article lead was a great example of writing a complicated topic without using jargon! Definitely is applicable for my own article which is similarly a complicated topic and the jargon is something I was struggling with.