User:Breedbr8131/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
The article I am evaluating is Polytrauma. Polytrauma is defined as "a person who has been subjected to multiple traumatic injuries" (para. 1). Source: Polytrauma.

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because it fell under the emergency services page. As a nursing student, I find emergency medicine fascinating. Polytrauma is not a area of medicine I am super familiar with, and I wanted to learn more.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section: the article does include a introductory sentence that clearly describes the topic of Polytrauma. The article also includes a brief description of the criteria of polytrauma (Injury Severity Score, ISS). The lead is not overly detailed. The last sentence explains extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) as an effective treatment, but I see this as a distraction; it could be moved to the end.

Content: The article's content is relevant to the topic. It explains civilian and military medicine in relation to polytraumas and what is most commonly seen. When looking at the references, it may be a bit outdated; however, it was last edited April 10, 2021. For underrepresented populations, the article talks about veterans and polytraumas with them. It mentions a screening process and places of rehab for injured soldiers.

Tone and Balance: The source is neutral with no obvious biases. The article is clear about what polytraumas are in both civilian and military medicine with no attempt to persuade the writer one way or another.

Source and References: When looking at the references, I see a book references, which I view as reliable. Also, there is information about the VA with a direct source from the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). The only critic for source is they mention common injuries, and I would have liked to see a study or separate reliable article explaining this.

Organization and writing quality: Writing is clear, appropriate to the topic, and easy to read. I did not see any grammar mistakes. I did find a spelling error (specializing, spelt specialising). I would have liked to know what the abbreviations (OEF/OIF/OND) meant. I could not find the meaning in the source.

Images and Media: There is one image that illustrates a clinic specializing in polytrauma. The image is nicely captioned. The image does go with the article. It is a shorter article, so I do not see the necessity to add more images.

Talk page discussion: The talk page is talking about improvements to the overall EMS task force page. They want to mention the idea of good faith and avoiding personal attacks. An escape chair is explained along with ambulatory services, which is see as unnecessary. Finally, it includes what not to add to the page like EMS employees. The talk page is part of the WikiProject page.

Overall impressions: The article was clear and easy to read, which made it informative. It had a good layout, which I find as a strength. The article can be improved by defining certain abbreviations and spelling errors. I can see it as underdeveloped; I feel there is more that can be said about polytraumas like going into some common ones (burns, motor vehicle accidents, etc.), but each trauma could be its own separate page.