User:Jpaul082/Axillary dissection/Mwill347 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? (provide username)
 * Jpaul082
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * Axillary dissection

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, except it does not mention the main use of the procedure is to treat breast cancer (but that is explained further in the lead)
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes, it contains information on lymph nodes that might be too specific for the lead. The definition of lymph nodes and noting the type of lymph nodes affecting by breast cancer are detailed in the lead but not further explained in any of the article's sections/pages
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is written well but this one sentence: The lymph nodes located in the axilla area that are affected by breast cancer are called the guardian or sentinel lymph nodes, might be too detailed for the lead, especially since this isn't further explained in the article. A more anatomical or scientific description of these lymph nodes could be useful in the "Appropriate Candidates for Treatment" section

Lead evaluation
Mostly basic enough yet relevant and eye-catching enough to be able to provide just enough information for a reader to understand what the article is about, but still needing to continue reading to receive all the information that may be useful to them when researching the topic. One tip, instead of saying "dealing with breast cancer", say "diagnosed with breast cancer" because it separates the patient from the ailment

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?
 * Further explain. what "node positive/negative" means and describe the basics of what a lymph node is since it is mentioned in the lead, and everything from the lead should be including in some way in the article

Content evaluation
This article has just enough content to explain the details of the procedure without going overboard in the scientific or medical terminology since that should be left for the medical professionals and research papers on the topic. All the content is relevant and related to the topic and I think the article is generally very well written.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, but like I said before it is important to separate a patient from their ailments, so instead of saying "dealing with breast cancer", say "diagnosed with breast cancer"
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * It will be helpful to provide context on the specific positives and negatives of this procedure. What are some side effects? What are the possible outcomes? Don't explain why it is better than other treatment methods, but you can include comparisons to other treatments
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, it provides an extremely neutral point of view on the basic facts of the procedure, not on the benefits or consequences of it

Tone and balance evaluation
The tone is very well balanced and does not in any way attempt to persuade the audience members that this treatment method is better than others. If you want to compare this method to others, make sure you are giving equal pros and cons for all methods mentioned, maybe even provide statistics

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
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes

Sources and references evaluation
Even though there are just a few sources, all are updated and current and provide enough information to back up what has been stated in the article

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?
 * No
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes

Organization evaluation
Even though this article explains a precise medical procedure used mainly to treat breast cancer, the article does not read like a professional medical journal. It is simply a description of the basics of the procedure, what it is used to treat, and why it is an efficient method in treating the ailment. There are no funny or confusing words that need further explanation, and it is possible for people of any age even those without medical background to understand the process and treatment methods

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes, there is one image that shows the various effects of breast cancer on the body which I'm not sure is a textbook diagram or licensed chart
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes

Images and media evaluation
There are only 2 images but they are enough to visually convey the article's content

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Yes
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * Much more detail and background. original article had no history or complete description of lymph nodes
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * More descriptions on how they test "node positive/negative" and how the procedure is actually completed