User:R.FouladiChami/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Sucking blister

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because of the population that it concerns.

Evaluate the article
Lead: the lead has not been updated from the previous version of the article. Since the original version, the lead only contains a one sentence description of the disease.

Content: the content added is relevant to the topic and up-to-date. There are still sections to be completed, such as prevention or screening section and outcomes or prognosis section (as they have mentioned in their group's talk page), if they can find a reliable source for them, since it appears that they have difficulty finding secondary sources.

Tone and balance: The current draft submission does reflect a neutral point of view. There are no opinions stated as fact, and the way that is written reflects in an informative way, and found no bias to any particular point of view.

sources and references: the content is backed up by both primary (case reports) and secondary sources and reflect what the cited sources say. The cited sources are current and the links them works.

Organization: the content are written in clear, layman terms and easy to follow with correct grammar. The content written is reflects the major topic and broken down into clear and organized sections.

Images and media: the article includes couple images that enhances the understanding of the topic, especially in the pathophysiology section. Both images are well-captioned; however, only one of the newborn's arm adheres to Wikipedia's copyright regulations.