User:Sostephmurphy/Hypotension/Tlemaster94 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? (Sostephmurphy)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hypotension&diff=937263374&oldid=937217198

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Lead has been adequately updated to better explain blood pressure reading significance and the newly included 'Pediatrics' section.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Lead introductory sentence is brief and easily understandable.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Most sections are explained but pathophysiology is mentioned only briefly in the second sentence and should be more fleshed out.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Lead is concise though could include more focus on causes of hypotension beyond that in athletes,

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Newly added information helps define hypotension in clinical terms without straying into jargon or technical discussion. Includes information relevant to both patients and providers.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes new content is backed by relatively recent sources.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * All concepts were effectively explained in terms understandable by a broad audience without diving into too much detail.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * New sections on pediatrics and medication regimen introduced follows peer-reviewed guidelines. Links have been included where appropriate to better explain individual medications and potential adverse effects.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No obvious bias is shown.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * Article tone is generally neutral, offering both traditional pharmacological and more conservative lifestyle modifications as potential options for managing hypotension.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes multiple secondary sources are cited by the article.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * A variety of sources are cited.
 * Are the sources current?
 * There are a mix of recent and older sources which should provide a balanced view.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * 5 links checked all with fully accessible articles.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes all additions are relevant and easy to understand.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No obvious spelling errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, article particularly benefits from new sections on medications and pediatrics.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Single illustration and table under pediatrics subsection—adequate for this length of article.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes.

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?
 * 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?
 * 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?
 * Yes the additions have helped clarify hypotension from a clinical perspective and gives a better frame of reference for the condition to any layman checking the page.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The greatest strength of the added content is how concise and easy to understand it is. The page had benefited significantly from the expansions.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Lead section has room for improvement particularly pertaining to causes of hypotension.