User talk:Simply28/sandbox

Peer review
·       Check for readability


 * Good readability overall. Consider consistently using direct/indirect or conjugated/unconjugated throughout the article instead of switching between the two. Also this reads a lot like guidelines with the “should be” statements (“an abdominal ultrasound should be obtained”). Consider replacing these with “is often” or “is usually.”
 * Maybe change percutaneous liver biopsy to something else—liver biopsy through the skin etc.
 * Consider either linking some of the more complicated words like hepatoportoenterostomy or briefly explaining them in a dependent claus marked with commas

·       Adherence to topic / Not getting off track


 * Good adherence to topic

·       Organization & Flow


 * Overall structure tracks with wikipedia’s standards

·       Use of images and figures


 * Probably none needed – could consider a table with some of the epidemiology info but not really necessary.

·       Proper use of citations


 * Looks good – probably some of the evaluation and treatment need to be cited

·       Paraphrasing


 * Looks good overall

·       Quality Sources, i.e. resources open to the public


 * Quite accessible and good reliable sources

·       Check for bias and equal-sided arguments


 * No bias seen—minimal need for concern for bias

Diabeticgiraffe (talk) 19:25, 11 December 2022 (UTC)