User talk:Jlautze/High tibial osteotomy

I did use the suggested rubric as a means to organize this peer review

1. Introduction- I really felt this was excellent. The topic was laid out clearly and concisely in the lead sentence and yet was fairly brief. The introduction did cover all the major points to be covered in the article as a whole, and the article did expound only on points laid out in the introduction. One suggestion would be to provide the full name for Jackson in sentence 2, as I think it is both more conventional and specific since the name is a relatively common one. Not required, but it might also help to provide either a link to pages on the discussed compartments (medial vs lateral) or a diagram, as I think a layperson may struggle to visualize the concept.

2. Article- Organization of the article was clear, with an excellent outline, headings, and subheadings, and good transitions. I felt the flow between sections was good overall, which definitely enhanced the readability of the article. IN terms of relevance and balanced coverage, it is harder for me to judge given my own lack of knowledge on the topic. All the information presented was very relevant to the topic, and if the sources or tone were biased in terms of the topic, it was not something I was able to discern. Overall, I felt the tone was very appropriate to the medium of an encyclopedia.

3. References. All important statements were supported by a citation. In terms of the quality of references...I am obviously not an expert in the field but based on a simple literature search they appear to be from respectable sources, reflective of the community expert opinions as a whole, and have been cited in other papers.

Daniemr (talk) 06:45, 5 December 2021 (UTC)