User:Katiehayman/Traumatic cardiac arrest/Cabculto Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Katiehayman


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

Peer review
Peer Review:

Lead:


 * The lead is concise, yet provides a great overview of the article's talking points.
 * The only topic I did not see covered in the article from the lead was the mention of neurological outcomes.
 * The only improvement I could see in the lead would be to add more links to certain medical terms such as "hypovolemia" and "hemorrhagic shock" so that they are easily connected to other medical topics and also to help the general audience with definitions of these complex terms.

Content:


 * The article has wonderful and logical content that provides an easy to read layout for an incredibly complex topic.
 * I am impressed with how you translated medical jargon to accessible knowledge for the public.
 * It looks like there is still development on the lists under the mechanism and treatment sections, but I believe once they are completed that they will add great thoroughness to the article.
 * I noticed under the diagnosis section that there are technical terms mentioned such as "CBC" and "RUSH exam" and I feel it might be helpful to include the full term.
 * All the links I selected in the article are functional.
 * The article relates to equity gaps and vulnerable populations.

Tone and balance:


 * Tone is neutral without any lean toward a certain school of thought over another.
 * The article reads well for an unbiased perspective of traumatic ACLS events similar to a literature review.

Sources and references:


 * The articles you used are from reputable journals and are secondary sources.
 * Most sources are open access and with easy availability for further reading.
 * The sources are approximately 10-15 years old. However, with this topic I am aware that certain guidelines change slowly so I can understand why it might be hard to include more current sources.
 * The only suggestion I have here would be to include more in text references for information credibility and increase overall sources for a wider variety of viewpoints.

Organization:


 * The article is well organized and if I were to come across this article without knowing anything about the topic, I would be able to easily navigate my way through the article.
 * I like the list formats under the mechanism and treatment sections, which I believe will make understanding this complex topic much easier for the public. This visual organization offers great readability.

Images and media:


 * There is an image on the page and it's a great intro photo. The image is robust with its caption and appears to fit guidelines with appropriate credit for posting on the page.
 * I would suggest adding an example CT or whatever you think useful to add some visual organization for the reader. This might help to tie together the diagnosis section.

Overall impressions:

-- Cabculto (talk) 04:42, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You have done a wonderful job moving from a stub article to your current progress. I appreciated the article's improvement in organization, style, and content, and I believe it is consistent with the objectives of WikiProject Medicine.
 * I see you have put great effort into your article and once the drafting is done, I believe this will be an impactful work for the community.