User:Mvtran/sandbox

Question 1. Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”?

Yes, the group's edits have established a clear structure, with etiology leading into diagnoses and treatment and management. The lead in paragraph also provides a clear overarching look at the topic, providing information on what coma blisters are and how they form as well as the conditions and populations they are commonly associated with. There is balanced coverage of the material, as the clinical cases presented also covers different populations. The article is written in a neutral tone, with no bias towards any singular source or viewpoint. The section on differential diagnoses helps clarify the difference between coma blisters from other similar blisters.

Question 2. Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement?

Yes, their goals were to add information about diagnosis, etiology, and treatments. These sections and topics are expanded on in the article and provide a good insight of coma blisters. The only remaining goal is to add an image of a coma blister.

Question 3b. Does the article meet Wikipedia guidelines? Are the claims included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available?

Yes, their claims are cited and verifiable with well-established sources. A majority of their claims are supported by secondary sources. Their clinical cases have primary sources, which is expected.

-Mvtran (talk) 17:21, 1 August 2022 (UTC)