User:CLwmed/Diffuse alveolar damage/CLwmed Peer Review

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? ( Akettler23 )
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * I like how you went from - "Diffuse alveolar damage (DAD) is a histologic term used to describe specific changes that occur to the structure of the lungs during injury or disease. Most often DAD is described in association with the early stages of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). It is important to note that DAD can be seen in situations other than ARDS (such as acute interstitial pneumonia) and that ARDS can occur without DAD." on 18:03, 17 April 2020 to later bolding terms and linking to histology.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Yes, it is concise without being overbearing - it points out the key detail that DAD ad ARDS are closely related and often associated with on another, but no the same phenomena.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, there is no extraneous content. While I wonder why we go into detail about ARDS' treatment and prognosis, as DAD itself is not a disorder that is explicitly treated, I think it makes sense to go into some detail about ARDS given how tied to the pathophysiological hip these two concepts are.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * It is very much uptodate.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I like the content sections and headings included. I hope to format my own article so well!  I would have liked to have not seen any "uptodate" citations since they are locked behind a paywall for persons outside a university system.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * It did not delve into differential of healthcare being or not being present in terms of socioeconomic status/race/culture.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, there are reliable, finable sources for many of the claims in the article. I would have liked if the sources were more open-sourced for persons outside of academic settings as mentioned before.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, they reflect the current limitations and many sources available on the relevant aspects of DAD.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes, the oldest citations was a pathophysiology article in 2005. Very little changes in significant understanding of disease processes in these areas.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * They are diverse, but it is hard to tell if historically marginalized individuals are included in the review materials.
 * Regarding mental illness, a relatively unconsidered portion of many physical maladies, consider adding stuff about psychiatric/psychological prognosis of recovery to the article. For example, from http://rc.rcjournal.com/content/61/5/689/tab-pdf  at What's Next After ARDS: Long-Term Outcomes. Davide Chiumello, Silvia Coppola, Sara Froio, Miriam Gotti. Respiratory Care May 2016, 61 (5) 689-699; DOI: 10.4187/respcare.04644
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Links 1-6 work just fine!
 * Links 1-6 work just fine!

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, I would just have a few grammatical suggestions:
 * ·      " The hyaline membranes deposit along the walls of the alveoli, where gas exchange primarily occurs, thereby decreasing gas exchange and decreasing the body’s ability to take in oxygen."
 * The most important factor for treating DAD or ARDS is to treat the underlying cause of the injury to the lung s. For example in the case of pneumonia or sepsis,..."
 * In the prognosis section, changing the sentence about the 72-45.5%, I think it would be more fair to indicate it came from a single center study.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No significant errors in the organization.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, it is grouped into the major relevant topics that could be expected of a disease process.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * They are captioned very well
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes, partially, it is hard to tell who authored the image.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:

CLwmed (talk) 06:00, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Yes! Akettler23 has expanded the article significantly from 5 citations to 15, from a middling LEAD, diagnosis and cause section to now including, treatment and prognosis as well in addition to fleshing out the formerly mentioned sections.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * See above.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Mental health aspect of prognosis as mentioned above. More use of opensource research.