User:Hartmanethan/Medical Education/Annamthompson Peer Review

General info
I am reviewing the work of Hartmanethan on Medical Education.

Lead
The Lead section is succinct includes important information about the article. The introductory sentence is concise and clearly describes the article's topic. However, this section does not include brief descriptions of the article's major sections. I would suggest including a sentence to summarize the new content Hartmanethan included. For example, it could be helpful to elaborate on "all levels" by replacing this with a list of the types of medical education the article discusses.

Content
The content Hartmanethan added is very relevant to the topic. Specifically, the sections on LCME and EPAs are on-topic, up-to-date additions. In Hartmanethan's workplan, he planned to add information to Online Medical Education and Medical Education as a Subject-Didactic Field. Hartmanethan did so, and added necessary content which was missing before. The workplan also mentioned adding examples to continuing medical education. While these edits were not made, many additions which were not outlined in the workplan were added to the Entry-level education section.

Tone and Balance
Hartmanethan's content was without any heavy biases toward a particular position. The additions helped make the article a more thorough representation of medical education. While the workplan seemed to have a bias toward online medical education, the information that was added was neutral and evidence-based.

Sources and References
Overall, Hartmanethan's new content is backed up by reliable secondary sources. In the section on EPAs for entering residency, I suggest adding citation(s) for the last sentence and the list of topics that EPAs address. These sources reflect the available literature on the topic and are current relative to the information available. The links to the sources are functional.

Organization
The content that Hartmanethan added is well-written and very easy to read. It is suitable for a varied audience and caters to many fields. I have not noticed any grammatical or spelling errors. Regarding organization, I applaud Hartmanethan on the article's structure. I would suggest adding a subheading under Medical Education as a Subject-Didactic Field or finding a more appropriate place to discuss cadaver dissection and OSCEs. Currently the addition of this information seems out of place after a discussion of curricula overview.

Images and Media
Hartmanethan inclusion of images of cadaver dissection and medical simulation were well-captioned and enhanced understanding of the topic.

Overall impressions
Overall, Hartmanethan has added content which has greatly improved the quality of the article. The page is much more complete now. The strengths of this article include the on-topic and up-to-date information about online medical education and subject-didactic fields. The main area requiring further work is the lead section, which can be updated to reflect Hartmanethan's edits. Great work, Hartmanethan! This article has been much improved!