User:Jpola3399/Gastrointestinal perforation/Emlitt Peer Review

General info
(provide username)
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


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

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.)

Overall you did a fantastic job editing the gastrointestinal perforation page. You answered all of your goals you set up for yourself including organizing the article for content and clarity. You did a great job expanding the signs and symptoms section, the complications subsection was well written. I recommend expanding on this section such as adding a sentence on internal bleeding and blood loss complications associated with GI perforation. I like the subsections you created for the causes of GI perforation, it is very well organized and encompasses all the major categories. All of the citations you added were appropriate, valid, and the links all worked. I recommend adding more citations throughout the paper. Specifically I would add citations to the "causes" section here: "The gastrointestinal wall is composed of four layers surrounding a central lumen. Gastrointestinal perforation is defined by a full-thickness injury to all layers of the gastrointestinal wall, resulting in a hole in the hollow GI tract (esophagus, stomach, small intestine, or colon). A hole can occur due to direct mechanical injury or progressive damage to the bowel wall due to various disease states". You can also add more citations to the first paragraph of the “diagnosis” section.

Your diagnosis and differential diagnosis section was thorough and complete. In your plan you discussed adding an "outcomes" section that was not done, if you want to consider still adding that. The article is very complete and detailed so this may not be necessary anymore.

Overall your edits were all excellent. It was clear, concise, and easy to read. You added relevant, up to date neutral content to the topic of GI perforation. You did a fantastic job.