User:Lamboozled/Chignon (medical term)/Brian.Chiu - UCSF PharmD. Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?
 * Chignon (medical term)


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

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.)

~
 * 1) Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”? [explain]
 * 2) * Overall, the article was able to provide medically relevant information regarding chignon and cite up-to-date sources that explains it further via secondary sources. This article could use some restructuring overall, as explained from prompt #2, and then further expand on what chignon is, how it is detected, what are its prevalence. Perhaps, the article can also talk about other alternatives to vacuum-assisted delivery, in addition to “forceps”. Are there any methods in the making that have yet to be put into practice? But, overall, definitely an improvement from the old article!
 * 3) Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement? [explain]
 * 4) * Not quite. The language in this article seemed overly jargony with the medical terms and the Chignon vs ______ sections detract the attention and focus from chignon, and is now more on clarifying the differences between what a chignon is versus other common complications involving head injuries from birth. One suggestion is to perhaps include an “Other Complications Related to Birth Traumas to the Head”. There, they may briefly talk about caput succedaneum, subgaleal hemmohage, and cephalohematoma. Then, instead of talking and expanding too much on these topics, they can link the articles that do talk about these conditions so that the readers, if they choose to, can just read up on it.
 * 5) Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? [explain]
 * 6) * Yes, the overall article maintains a neutral point of view, and its materials are explained and further elaborated from an informational point of view. This article did not serve to have conflict of interests, and was not written in a way that tried to promote personal beliefs or persuading its readers of any ideas.