User talk:Jamesle1995/sandbox

Peer Review

 * Peer review guidelines:
 * Check for readability - This is a difficult topic to write about at a readable level, and I think you do a good job explaining. While there is a good amount of scientific language, I can't think of ways it could be avoided reading your article.  The only part I would consider looking at again is in Evaluation, "bony ridge at the vertex" is a bit hard to follow.
 * Adherence to topic / Not getting off track - Definitely on topic, no unneeded information or tangents.
 * Organization & Flow - Good logical flow from etiology through to diagnosis and treatment. Maybe consider moving the terminology section first, to add extra context to the rest of the article, but definitely minor, and still works.
 * Use of images and figures - I like the inclusion of the atypical classification appearances, helps give context to what's written.
 * Proper use of citations - Citations look good throughout the article with a solid list of references. The last citation could be moved to the end of the sentence in the terminology section.
 * Paraphrasing - The article gives a very will summarized overview of scaphocephaly, with concise and appropriate language throughout.
 * Quality Sources, i.e. resources open to the public - good list of references that were available when I looked into them, all seem relevant and within date.
 * Check for bias and equal-sided arguments - Very good use of neutral terms providing a nice informative article. I could not see any loaded language within the text.
 * Provide productive and professional critique - Overall, I think this is a very solid article! It is a difficult topic to discuss in an approachable way, and I think you did a good job effectively summarizing it.  You could consider adding a brief sentence summarizing treatment and goals of care in the intro paragraph to make it a bit more robust.  Also you have craniosynostosis linked twice in the opening paragraph.  There is also an open parenthesis in the terminology section.  Lastly you could consider linking some of the more difficult terms to their pages, such as intracranial pressure, syndrome, and FGFR.  Besides those minor nitpicks, I really enjoyed it.  Good job!

BryHealth (talk) 20:10, 7 January 2023 (UTC)