User talk:Med2023/Biceps tendon rupture/JakeBentley23 Peer Review

Peer Review of Med2023 Biceps Tendon Rupture
Lead


 * Yes, the lead makes clear that any of the 3 tendons of the biceps can be torn, which I believe is an important detail and a good inclusion for the lead.
 * Yes, there was no need to edit the introductory sentence.
 * I do think that the Lead could do a better job of providing a "fly-over" view of the entire article, because as presently constituted it effectively just defines a biceps tendon rupture. It would be strengthened by touching on things like signs and symptoms, diagnosis, treatment, prognosis, etc. even in just a few short sentences.
 * No, it does not include information that is not present in the article.
 * The lead is concise and is not overly detailed. I think it could use some more details.

Content


 * Yes, all of the content added is relevant to the topic.
 * Yes, the content added seems to me to be up-to-date.
 * No I think the content that has been added seems great.
 * With respect to content that does not belong, in the paragraph that was added under "Treatment" it seems that some of that information would better fit under "Prognosis" ("deficits in shoulder flexion, flexion at the elbow....etc." and "persistent loss of function with regard to flexion....")
 * I like that there is a paragraph under Treatment that addresses surgical techniques specifically and I wonder if a picture or diagram of that could be beneficial. It sounds interesting but is hard to follow in words.
 * No it doesn't deal with equity gaps or underrepresented populations or topics.

Tone and Balance


 * Yes, the content added is neutral.
 * No, I don't detect any clear bias.
 * No I don't believe viewpoints are over- or under-represented. I liked how the article includes both operative and non-operative management of biceps tears
 * No, I don't feel the article is trying to be persuasive.

Sources and References


 * As far as I can tell, the references seem solid.
 * Based on the references that I have checked into, it seems that the article represents the information that is contained in those references.
 * The sources seem thorough and reflect what is currently known and believed about biceps tears
 * Yes, I noticed that the sources are VERY current. Great job on this.
 * Sources look great, links work.

Organization


 * The writing is very clear, although I do think that some additional pictures/diagrams could be helpful to help visualize some of the chunks of text regarding anatomy, surgical technique, physical exam techniques, etc. I think some of the writing may be difficult to understand for someone not in medicine (supination, pronation, ecchymosis, etc.) but I am not sure how "dumbed down" we need the article to be.
 * I didn't notice any glaring grammatical or spelling errors
 * Organization/order of topics looks great

Images and Media


 * I can't tell which images you added, but the ones that are in the article now look great, although I do think that some more should be added, as aforementioned.

Overall Impressions


 * I feel that the content added has significantly strengthened the article. It is hard to imagine that there was much of an article at all before the additions that were made. The content added is very thorough and you can tell that great care was taken to find reliable, current sources of information, which is very important as this is a topic that is constantly changing with regards to diagnosis, treatment, prognosis, etc.
 * I believe I have already addressed the things that I think could be improved about the article above. The most important being improving on the Lead as well as adding some additional pictures to clarify some of the larger chunks of text.

JakeBentley23 (talk) 16:20, 2 February 2023 (UTC)


 * == Respond to feedback: ==
 * Thanks for the feedback and thorough review of this article. I made changes to the lead section and treatment section based on your recommendations. I left some of the medical terminology there (supination and pronation) because I didn't know how to describe the accurately without being too verbose. I left hyperlinks to the wikipedia pages on them in case the reader wants more detail. I added all the images that are currently on the page, but unfortunately am unable to find appropriate pictures to better describe the surgical technique. Once again, thank you very much for your time and feedback, you've helped make this article even better.
 * Med2023 (talk) 17:29, 2 February 2023 (UTC)