User:AmakIdris/Paramedic/Clark3ei Peer Review

General info
AmakIdris- Paramedic article
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Paramedic

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead


 * The edits made to the Occupational Hazards sections has a strong lead that introduces the reader to the main ideas. The new lead section consists of two clear and concise sentences that list the broad categories of content that will be covered in the body of the section. It may be worth investigating the NIOSH website to see if any guidance exists on occupational hazard management in paramedics. They are a major entity in workplace safety and prevention and it would probably increase the strength of the second sentence in your lead section.

Content


 * The content included in the body of the article is relevant to the the topic and up to date. Listing the main categories of physical injuries is very good and adds to the clarity of the article. It may be worth considering to elaborate a little more on the "physical injuries" subsection. Specifically, it would be interesting if statistics could be added that outlines the most common types of injuries and then list out their percentages. For example, "musculoskeletal injuries are the most common type of injury accounting for 80% of total injuries to paramedics" (if such data exists). Adding another line about needlestick injuries could be beneficial as well, such as the common pathogens of concerns such as HIV, Hep B and Hep C. It could be interesting to see if there are statistics on workplace violence in paramedics as that can present both a physical and psychological hazard. Finally, it may be worth finding an example of a specific chemical exposure that paramedics may be commonly exposed to.

Tone and Balance


 * The article edits are written very nicely in terms of tone and balance. It is written neutrally and presents the objective facts to the reader. It does not overrepresent one particular viewpoint and does not try to persuade the reader to take a particular stance on the issue.

Sources and References


 * There are four references that support the information of the created edits. Upon quick review, the sources appear to be good secondary sources that are up to date. These sources are thorough and cover the topic points well. Expanding the information as suggested above and finding supporting sources may be a good next step. All of the source links work and are appropriate.

Organization


 * The content is well written, well organized and easy to follow. In the first sentence under the "physical injuries" subheading, it looks like "perceived" should be changed to "received".

Images and Media

Overall, really nice job! Keep up the good work!
 * There were no new images added. Adding a few images that are pertinent to the major occupational hazards would really enhance the appeal of the article.