User talk:Drchancer/Cold injury

Peer Review
I really liked the Lead for your article. It clearly outlines the main points and effectively orients the reader to the subject. Much like the rest of the article, it borders on the lengthy side. There may be a few places you could consolidate if you want, but honestly it's probably okay to error on the long side.

For the body of the article, I really liked a lot of the content. Information was clear when I read through it completely, but some of the formatting could draw attention better. For a specific example, consider the section on degrees of burn. The headers to the various degrees of cold injury could be underlined or bolded or maybe you could have an image from an article that outlines these categories. That could help the reader attenuate to the important information, especially important given how much you have written. I think a similar thing could be improved on the sections discussing staging and grading. It could also be that this is still a draft and formatting isn't complete. I loved the differential building! I feel like that's left out of so many medical discussion when we put stuff into Lay terms, but it's one of the most important parts. The non-freezing cold injuries were interesting. I wouldn't have thought of that subset of injury.

Overall I really liked your article. It was very informative and complete. Your citations seem appropriate and well documented. I liked all the technical wikipedia formatting with links to other articles and all that. The primary areas of improvement I see involve formatting and use of technical language. Formatting is mostly a problem because of your length. With this size of writing I think you could use formatting that better draws the reader's attention to important or summarizing sections. As far as technical language, it seems like this is closer to college level reading. There were terms like cyanosis, pathology, and differential that I would not have known even before med school. Some technical language is obviously okay, but maybe try and edit out some of it or define terms as you go. Otherwise, it's no surprise you did an awesome job. Thanks for letting me read! SamuelFarris93 (talk) 17:04, 13 November 2022 (UTC)