User:Aparnasankar/Mechanical ventilation/Vs2022 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Aparnasankar


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Aparnasankar/Mechanical ventilation


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Mechanical ventilation

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? - The lead has been updated to reflect the contents of the article.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? - The introductory sentence does a good job of defining mechanical ventilation and its role in medicine.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? - The lead provides an overview of most sections. It does not touch on the history or risks/complications, so maybe an additional sentence or phrase could be added to encompass those.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? - The lead does not include information that is not present in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? - The lead has been improved to make it more relevant to the article and to describe the topic in a more accessible way.

Content


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? - Relevant information has been added to the "Uses" and "Risks and complications" sections. The "Mechanism" sections has been cleaned up to remove information that goes into too much depth. Additionally, the "History" section has been expanded upon greatly. All of the updates to the content are relevant to the topic and improve the overall readability of the page.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? - Generally, yes. Most of the citations are from the 2000's and seem up-to-date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? - No, the page appears to be fairly comprehensive.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? - No

Tone and balance


 * Is the content added neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? - Yes, the content added is neutral without biases towards any particular position.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? - No, the article is neutral without any overrepresentation or underrepresentation of groups. For example, information is provided on infants and adults, and the use of certain medications such as opioids in both populations is presented.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? - The added content is informative but not persuasive in favor of any particular position.

Sources and references


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? - Most of the new content is appropriately cited. There are some areas where additional citations may be appropriate. For example, in the "History section", the third paragraph "With increased... used in the ICU" does not have any citation. Even if the same citation was used as the previous paragraph, it might be worthwhile to cite it again just to make the source of the information clear.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? - Yes, the content reflects the cited sources.
 * Are the sources current? - For the most part, yes.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? - Yes, the links appear to work.

Organization


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? - Yes, the content that has been added is concise and readable.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? - Added content does not have any obvious grammatical or spelling errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? - The organization of the page has been improved and the content has been added to relevant sections.

Images and media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? - Yes, the article includes multiple images that make it easier to visualize certain aspects of the topic.
 * Are images well-captioned? - Most of the images are well-captioned. Some are more descriptive than others.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? - The images appear to be compliant with copyright regulations.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? - Yes, the images are laid out alongside the relevant sections.

Overall impressions


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? - The information added is of good quality and the reorganization of the article has increased its accessibility to readers without much background knowledge in this subject. The removal of information that is too in-depth and the expansion of certain areas of the article have definitely improved the quality of the page.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? - The added content makes it easier to learn about the history of mechanical ventilation and also makes the content on mechanism, uses, and risks more accessible to a reader without a good understanding of the subject.
 * How can the content added be improved? - Some areas of the article (particularly "Negative pressure machines" and "Types of ventilators") have been marked as needing citations. Perhaps in future edits, those areas could be improved to ensure that the information is accurate and backed by reliable sources.

- Vs2022