User:CheckDO/Intestinal pseudo-obstruction/MrBugsyBubz Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

CheckDO


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * intestinal pseudo-obstruction
 * intestinal pseudo-obstruction

Evaluate the drafted changes
(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.)

Lead:
 * clear and easy to understand
 * links to other pages are helpful
 * generally contains a good concise summary/descriptor for the major sections of the article. The only possible exception to this is the lead's part about diagnosis with mentions of Ogilvie's syndrome and a specific study. It may be best to move the more detailed parts of this under the dedicated diagnosis section.

Content:
 * Content appears to be up-to-date but references are not. See below for references.

Tone and Balance:
 * Good neutral balance. Written to inform, not convince. Continue to give particular attention to neutral, balanced points to the "potential treatments" section for any future edits or additions.

Sources and References:
 * Generally reliable sources. The reference for NORML is cited as a potentially unreliable source. I'm torn on this. They are a non-profit advocacy group so you could argue the source is not neutral. However, this page serves almost like a review (as it cites a lot of the relevant research), and including the source adds balance to the article. The wiki article is written in such a way that it provides appropriate weight to the subject.
 * Potentially out-of-date references, with many references being before 2010. However, this may not be a concern if there has not been a significant change in knowledge and research of the topic in the last 20 or so years. This may be something to consider.
 * I'm unclear on which reference additions were yours so it is very likely that the newly added references are the references from the last 10 years. If so, then the additions are particularly useful.

Organization:
 * Clear, logical structure of article and sections

Images and Media:
 * No images or media have been added. Did want to congratulate you on the fantastic infobox changes, though! This would be a great place for an image.

Overall Impressions:
 * So much content added in previously underdeveloped sections! Written clearly and concisely. Previously developed sections were cleared up and summarized (such as the treatment section). All of these changes make the article seem much more balanced and accessible to readers with varying educational backgrounds. The infobox is a great addition.