User:Grantsuth/Necrosis/Hayeonc Peer Review

General info
grantsuth
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Necrosis
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):

Evaluate the drafted changes
"Not to be confused with Narcosis" on the very top of the page seems very helpful to prevent the readers being confused by the similarly spelled terms and linking a term with wrong information and to divert them to the topic of interest.

The lead section seems to be over-explaining. I don't think the term coined by the German pathologist is necessary in this supposedly-short summary. The introductory sentence is concise and well defines what necrosis is. This section includes how necrosis is similar but different from "apoptosis," and I think this information is good to be included here as apoptosis is a commonly studied term and they both describe cell death in a broad sense. Right beside the lead section, the author(s) included a diagram comparing necrosis and apoptosis side by side, which seems very informative and helpful for visual-learners. The very last sentence needs citation though.

Overall, the content is organized with headings and subheadings. For example, "Causes" of necrosis are divided into "External factors" and "Internal factors." Even the subheading of "Morphological patterns" under the heading of "Classification" is divided into six numbered morphological patterns, which is easy to read and to find the desired information rather than a chunky paragraph. Each of the six bullets also starts with the specific type/pattern with its Wikilink so that the readers can look for more information with just one click if they want. There are some sentences that need citations. There are multiple well-captioned pictures spread throughout the body section next to their relevant information. I like that the page includes a section for "Treatment," which is also in bullet-points. It fills the knowledge gap and expands the content of the page. The article overall sounded neutral, and I did not notice any personal or biased statement while reading it. I did not feel like I was being swayed to a specific opinion.

There are quite high number of sources the article cited, and they are from academic journals. All of them are after 2000, and there are some published within the last five years, indicating the page contains recent information. Some of the links I clicked worked.