User:Ff0088/Prone ventilation/Ngx04 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? Ff0088
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Prone ventilation

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes. I would suggest changing "Prone ventilation sometimes called prone positioning or proning refers to mechanical ventilation with the patient lying face-down (prone)" to "Prone ventilation, also called prone positioning or proning, refers to mechanical ventilation while the patient is lying face-down (prone)" for easier readability.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, it is appropriate in the information it provides.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? It does not deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Includes positive benefits based on research, but research is neutral. So, 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? There is overwhelming data in favor of prone ventilation with no cons. However, the research does back up this claim.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes.
 * Are the sources current? Yes.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Some spelling errors (ie. benifit instead of benefit,  fascilitate instead of facilitate,  occure instead of occur,  aleviates instead of alleviates,  dorsaly instead of dorsally,   hetergenous instead of heterogenous.  utalized instead of utilized).
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No
 * Are images well-captioned? N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A

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


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Great job! Just needs some spelling error checks and sentence restructuring that might help with readability.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The content itself is very informative and evidence-based
 * How can the content added be improved? Spelling & sentence structure.