User:StudentdocEB/Splenogonadal fusion/Gensurg22 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

User:StudentdocEB


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Splenogonadal fusion


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Splenogonadal_fusion&oldid=1053703914

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?

- Yes, the Lead section has been updated to reflect the sections below.

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?

- Yes.

Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?

- Yes.

Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?

- No.

Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

- The lead section is appropriately detailed. Although, I would consider a the sections of the article to reflect standard medical encyclopedic formating, which would need to be set within the lead for organizational purposes: Lead Summary (definition), epidemiology, etiology, pathophysiology, clinical features, diagnostics, treatment, complications.

Content

Is the content added relevant to the topic?

- Yes.

Is the content added up-to-date?

- Yes.

Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

- Yes, much more content could be added to fullfill the standard sectioning identified above.

Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

- No.

Tone and Balance

Is the content added neutral?

- Yes.

Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

- No. Slight bias in the phrasing of the use of Technetium-99m sulfur colloid scanning, as it is phrasing of superiority without cited data to justify the claim. Overall, neutral...not heavily biased.

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?

- No.

Sources and References

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

- Yes, but the citations are not updated as of yet. That should be next on the workplan.

Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?

- Yes. The current sources are up to date regarding "99mTc-Sulfur Colloid SPECT/CT in Diagnosis

Are the sources current?

- Yes.

Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors?

- Yes.

Check a few links. Do they work?

- Yes.

Organization

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?

- Yes. The content is easily understandable.

Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?

- No.

Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

- Standard Medical Encyclopedic Formatting would follow: Lead Summary (definition), epidemiology, etiology, pathophysiology, clinical features, diagnostics, treatment, complications.

Overall impressions

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?

- Yes. The new content contributes to the completeness of the article.

What are the strengths of the content added?

- The diagnosis section is strong.

How can the content added be improved?

- Following the standard medical encyclopedic format to ensure that information is organized throughout, and that information is presented in the correct sections.

Gensurg22 (talk) 23:14, 19 March 2022 (UTC)