User:LessonsInSpencer/Transfusion associated circulatory overload/Kporter0918 Peer Review

Lead: I think your lead may be a little too concise. Remember that it is a "lead" rather than an "intro." Readers should be able to read this section and get all the main highlights of the article, if you will. I would recommend expanding your lead to cover all of the major sections of the article.

Content: All of the content is relevant to the topic and up to date. See "Organization" for a couple more suggested changes.

Tone and Balance: The content is very well balanced and neutral. No changes needed here.

Sources and References: The link for Source #2 isn't working for me. For the large PDF files, like the SHOT reports, it might be helpful to add page numbers to your citations. Not absolutely necessary, but certainly helpful to future readers and editor.

Organization: In terms of your content, it is very concise, but unfortunately not very easy to read for a lay-person. I would recommend editing your article to be in more patient-friendly terms. For example, instead of "respiratory distress", you could say "trouble breathing." Also, according to the Manual of Style for Medicine Related Articles, there may be a few sections missing and a few that could be renamed to be more patient friendly. The sections that are relavent to your article, along with suggestions for each!


 * Signs and symptoms: Content is good, just make it patient friendly. Perhaps separate into 2 sections: Symptoms and Signs on Exam using subheadings
 * Causes and Mechanism: Combine these two sections, since there's really only one cause. This section should include risk factors, triggers, and the info that you currently have in your Pathogenesis section. For the pathogenesis content, I think it will help to have the text be more patient friendly.
 * Diagnosis: The content in this section is good. I would just recommend making the diagnostic criteria more clear. You say "at least one of the following," but then there's a second section titled "Along with." It is kind of unclear which characteristics "one of the following" refers to, and whether all of the characteristics in the "along with" section are required for diagnosis.
 * Prevention : Just for the purposes of readability, one thing you could do to improve this section would be to bullet point the ways you can prevent TACO, rather than it being in paragraph form
 * Treatment (or Management, especially for chronic conditions): Good content, just make it more patient friendly
 * Outcomes or Prognosis: What is the prognosis of TACO? Might be a good sentence to add
 * Epidemiology: Is there any data on other factors such as age distribution, sex ratio, race/ethnicity, comorbidities, etc? Though not absolutely necessary, these would definitely be a nice addition to this article.
 * History: This section is ok, I recognize that the history of TACO is not a very robust area of literature haha
 * Research directions: Is there any new research in this area? Per Wikipedia - "Include only if addressed by significant sources. See Trivia, and avoid useless statements like "More research is needed". Wikipedia is not a directory of clinical trials or researchers."

Images and Media: Add citations to image captions. Also add the content of captions into the text so that people can translate into other languages. For CXR caption, label the circle and arrow in the caption

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

LessonsInSpencer


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Transfusion associated circulatory overload
 * Transfusion associated circulatory overload

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.)