User:Omurphy5/Gunshot wound/Lyang82 Peer Review

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? Omurphy5
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Omurphy5/Gunshot wound

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
The lead's introductory sentence is concise and describes the article's topic well. The main sections of the article includes gunshot wound management and signs and symptoms. These two main sections are mentioned in the lead. I think the lead in the article is a bit detailed. I think the specific statistics can maybe be moved to the body of the article.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
Most of the content is up to date. However, the statistics in the Epidemiology section is from 2015 and 2016. I think these statistics can be updated with statistics from 2019. I think most of the content present is relevant to the topic. However, I think the mention of kinetic energy in the Pathophysiology section is a bit too detailed. I don't think it is very necessary to explain the math of the kinetic energy equation.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The content added is neutral. There are not any claims that appear heavily biased towards a particular position. No viewpoints are overrepresented or underrepresented. The content added does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
The new content is backed up by reliable secondary source of information. The sources are current. Most of them were published in the 2000s. The sources consists of reliable websites, articles, papers, and journals. The links work and the sources reflect the available literature on the topic.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
I think the article and the content added is well-written. It is concise, clear, and easy to read. The content has no grammatical and spelling errors. The content added is well-organized especially the section "Management".

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation
I think the images does a good job enhancing the understanding of the topic. However, some of the images can be enlarged to be more visually appealing. The images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations.

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
I think the content in the sandbox would make more sense if it is incorporated directly into the article. I think more content can be added in the research section. Under the Epidemiology section, maybe consider combining the "Canada" section with the paragraphs above it instead of giving it its own section.