User:Mdimola/Pediatric Apheresis/JayKassis Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Mdimola/Pediatric Apheresis


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Mdimola/Pediatric Apheresis

Evaluate the drafted changes
To Improve:

The contents section should have clear titles and subtitles help the reader shortcut to the desired section. At the moment, the contents section needs reviewing.

Overall formatting. Have consistency in terms of font size, font style, and remove unnecessary subtitles (for example "lead:").

Avoid sentences that have little meaning, for example "There are considerations to be made when performing apheresis in pediatric patients". Although the idea and point you are making is continued throughout the article, in this sentence alone, there is something missing.

Do not mention what articles are good at adding information, just add the important information yourself. For example, "This article addresses common considerations of apheresis when performed in the pediatric population".

In your article body, it appears that you are listing off definitions of various terms related to your topic. I would recommend rephrasing your article so that it is more clear and concise on what you are talking about.

I would also recommend being more clear about what you mean in general. Example: "Pediatric patients undergoing apheresis treatments require ongoing monitoring." Monitoring by who? Where? For what?

Over-generalizing. What does "Appropriate size and type of catheter for treatment", really mean? What is the appropriate size.

Done Well:

You use great peer reviewed articles and source your work well.

You keep a neutral tone throughout the article.

Informative images.

The sources are up to date, varying from early 2000's to 2021.

Overall:

Your article has a lot of great information, and contains many reliable and appropriate sources. The main improvements necessary revolve around general writing style. I hope the examples above help you bring more clarity to your points. Great work!

Peer Review Response
Thank you for you edits and suggestions. You provide some very astute observations that will help me curate content within the article.

I have just a clarifying question regarding your suggestion "Do not mention what articles are good at adding information, just add the important information yourself. For example, "This article addresses common considerations of apheresis when performed in the pediatric population". When I refer to "article" it is meant to clarify the intent of my article not generally speaking. Since this is unclear I will attempt to rephrase based on your suggestion.

All other suggestions have been made to further clarify intent and meaning. Thanks again for this excellent peer review.Mdimola (talk) 13:24, 30 November 2021 (UTC)