User:Ailenilin/Basic life support/Heidi90189676415M Peer Review

General info
Ailenilin
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ailenilin/Basic_life_support?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Basic life support

Evaluate the drafted changes
I enjoyed reading this draft. When reviewing it, there are a few areas that should be examined for both their strengths and weaknesses. Firstly, I think that the "Lead" could be rewritten to better reflect the article and the changes made. Although the "Lead" in the draft does establish the fact that information will be added, it does not fulfill other items in the list shown above. Additionally, I think that it may be too short.

As for the information itself, I think the author of this draft has provided information that would be beneficial to add to the article. Additionally, the draft is related to the article, and the sources used prove that the information is recent. It does not seem like the draft is addressing any equity gaps since it is describing a specific type of health issue. However, I do think some information from the draft is missing. Since the author plans to place the draft within a specific portion of the text, then it should match the same structure as that text. For example, the author could consider including some information regarding how to react to a "Shock."

Thirdly, one should examine the "Tone and Balance" portion of the above list. The content appears to be neutral, there does not seem to be any form of bias, and I do not think the author is trying to persuade readers. However, the draft only has one citation. Since there are two sources listed under the draft's "References," one set of views may be more prevalent than another.

Fourthly, the questions under "Sources and References" can be answered. It is difficult to determine if the entire draft is credible because only one citation is provided. As for the content, I was not able to find the first reference at the website provided in the citation. Since I do not have access to the sources, I cannot determine the answers to the second, third, fifth, and seventh questions. However, the works do seem current, especially since the first has a date of 2024 and the second has a date of 2021.

Next, I think that the organization of the work is good. I think it correctly addresses the first and third questions related to "Organization" in the list provided. There are a few grammar mistakes, like the need for two additional commas in the third sentence, but such errors are minor. Since the draft does not have any pictures and will be added to an existing article, the "Images and Media" and "For New Articles Only" questions do not apply.

Overall, I think the proposed draft adds important information to the article. In my opinion, its biggest strength is that it sounds well-written, aside from small grammar issues. However, the biggest change I would suggest would be adding more citations. Once again, I enjoyed reading the draft, and I hope the revision process goes well.

Heidi90189676415M