User:Bryantp1/Draft:Confusion Assessment Method/FutureMD-SR Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? Bryantp1

Lead
-Overall, covers the important information in a concise way

-Revise formatting -- remove Intro header so that Intro section will become Lead.

-Recommend revising for readability even though this is targeted at students/providers -- currently grade 16 level

Overall: Excellent

Content
-I really like how you organized the sections, they seem to cover the important information

-Consider adding a history section (i.e. when/where this was developed, when it became widely used, etc.)

-The elements of score section is a bit confusing. The diagnostic algorithm chart you included covers the four features best able to ID delirium that are included in the second part of the assessment, but it is unclear how the first part assesses the 9 features of delirium. A little more detail would be nice.

-Table is very helpful here

Overall: Good

Tone and Balance
-Balance and tone are very appropriate throughout

-Might be worthwhile explaining how widespread CAM is, since I believe there are other popular delirium assessment methods used elsewhere

Overall: Excellent

Sources and References
-Sources are appropriately varied given the scope of the article

-Great inclusion of some newer sources that are not peer-reviewed articles

-All links work

Overall: Excellent

Organization
-Organization is appropriate throughout

-Would recommend revising all content for readability

-I like the Adaptations section, if you wanted to add more you could include more sub-sections for the other types but this isn't necessary

Overall: Excellent

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.

-Meets notability requirements

-Reference list seems appropriate, probably not fully exhaustive

-No links to other articles in the draft, would recommend adding some links

Overall: Excellent

Overall impressions
Great work so far on this new article! Only a few tweaks are needed to make things a bit stronger, particularly focusing on readability. The audience for this article seems to be health students and professionals, and the tone is probably appropriate for them, but it could still be modified to read more smoothly. You can also add a bit more context of how widespread this assessment method is, both in clinical practice and research. I think this is overall a solid article for something so new.