User:LutzDO/Bowel resection/Roddamar Peer Review

Hello LutzDO,


 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic?
 * Yes, everything in the article is relevant to the Bowel resection.
 * Is there anything that distracted you? No, everything that was written is relevant to the discussion, there was no added fluff.
 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Everything in the article is neutral, and there were no claims that appears that appear to lean towards bias. Both reasons why bowel resection would need t be performed and potential consequences of bowel resection were thoroughly discussed.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No, the article writer mentioned multiple reasons as to why bowel resection may be necessary such as cancer, bowel obstruction, perforation, and ischemia. I suppose you could say that ischemia could be discussed a little bit more since failure to treat it can lead to a 50% mortality rate. Perhaps explaining the pathophysiology behind how bowel ischemia can lead to necrosis would be helpful.
 * Check the citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
 * Yes, the citations work ad it appears they accurately support the claims in the article.
 * Is each fact supported by an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
 * Yes, the writer used multiple sources such as PubMed and Medlineplus which are respected journals and reliable sources for information.
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that should be added? No, citations used appeared to up to date information, and the top of bowel resection was thoroughly discussed.
 * Check the citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
 * Yes, the citations work ad it appears they accurately support the claims in the article.
 * Is each fact supported by an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
 * Yes, the writer used multiple sources such as PubMed and Medlineplus which are respected journals and reliable sources for information.
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that should be added? No, citations used appeared to up to date information, and the top of bowel resection was thoroughly discussed.
 * Yes, the writer used multiple sources such as PubMed and Medlineplus which are respected journals and reliable sources for information.
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that should be added? No, citations used appeared to up to date information, and the top of bowel resection was thoroughly discussed.
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that should be added? No, citations used appeared to up to date information, and the top of bowel resection was thoroughly discussed.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(provide username)

Thank you for the review. I will expand the ischemia section if I have time after adding the complications. LutzDO (talk) 14:51, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * 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.)