User:SukhKaur2023/sandbox

Diagnosis and Treatment of Septic Pelvic Thrombophlebitis. Peer Review


 * 1) Do the group's edits substantially improve the article as descried in the Wiki peer review " Guiding Framework" ?
 * 2) The article covers most aspects of the fifth disease and compiles important information for a reader to find in one place. The content added is relevant to the topic and easy to read. Some changes I would suggest is ordering of headings to be in a more chronological order. The Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles can be used as a reference to see how headings in an article are usually lined up. For example, the "History" section would have been better if placed together with 'Introduction" rather than in the end. Another change that can be made is clearing up the structure of the article so that repetitive information is not placed in different sections of the article. For example, the information about "special populations" who are affected with this disease could have been put under epidemiology with two sub-headings- Special populations and Vulnerable populations. Overall, the article shows balanced coverage and neutral point of view.
 * 3) Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement?
 * 4) The group added a lot of background information which was their first goal. The article contains information that is relevant and backed by references. The treatment sections and standard of care also has added references to support the new information. The group spent time on adding information about epidemiology, special and vulnerable populations which fulfills their third role. Although the group only added one picture in the article, it could be due to the lack of open access pictures in mass commons or lack of time as established by the group in their plan. The causes, complications and diagnosis sections are added as planned by the group except the "prevention" section.
 * 5) Are the points included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available?
 * 6) Reference 4 has a 'Summary" of the article linked to it instead of the whole article.
 * 7) References 3 & 5 need access to NCBI for full text access.
 * 8) Reference 21, 23, 31, 32 & 35 have only the 'Abstract" portion of the article linked.
 * 9) Reference 34 is a news article that shows the point of view of a doctor.