User:Cbutterflyd/Pediatric advanced life support/Thecptawesome Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Cbutterflyd


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cbutterflyd/Pediatric_advanced_life_support?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Pediatric advanced life support

Evaluate the drafted changes
I would ensure that acronyms are always explained when first used, though the first actual mention may be in the original article and not in your sandbox. I will treat your "assessment section" as the lead. It is concise and neatly lays out the article. I think it may be helpful to cite something (maybe a professional organization) in this section.

Initial assessment: I think it should read "The initial assessment is meant to be a..." and I think infra-parenthetical parentheses use [brackets], but I could be wrong.

I like the initial assessment and primary assessment sections. You reminded me that I should go through my article and link it to other wikipedia articles like you have! I again think that citing one organization (perhaps your current first source) once in each section may be appropriate.

Overall, the content seems up to date, and the sources are all recent, reliable secondary sources. These should be some of the first and best sources found on the topic. There are missing sections which the writer clearly plans to complete later, and I hope to see more sources from a broad spectrum included to support the larger article.

Balance is of little issue, as these emergency assessments tend not to be the subject of much debate, but there does not seem to be any undue bias toward an unwarranted position in any of the steps outlined.

The article is well outlined and organized, I pointed out a few grammatical/spelling/missing word issues that are very easily correctable, and I would love to read over the final product to lay another set of eyes on these very minor things. I think, just like I should do in my article, some images may be helpful for demonstration and readability.

I think that, thus, far, you have vastly improved the previously non-existent article, and need to complete the missing parts with equal quality to the ones you have so far. I think keeping in mind to include plain descriptions of any terms you use will be of great use as well.

(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)