User talk:Wpcgb/sandbox

Peer Review!
Hi Cassie! First of all, fantastic job on expanding this topic. It's such a big deal in medicine to have end organ damage, and because of that I'm surprised this was a stub to start with- so thank you for your hard work!


 * Check for readability : This is something I have struggled with a lot on my article!! I'm doing an eye-related topic and "ophthalmology" alone is a 5 syllable word :'( I think the most important place to make sure the article has good "readability" is the lead, since that's what most lay people will use as way to understand and access the rest of the article. I would suggest altering the lead slightly to remove some of the medical jargon like hypotension or hypovolemia. My suggestion is: "End organ damage is severe impairment of major body organs due to prolonged uncontrolled high blood pressure or conditions of low blood pressure or low blood volume. This can present as a heart attack or heart failure, pulmonary edema, neurologic deficits including a stroke, or acute kidney failure." This shifts your Flesch-Kincaid readability from a 22.4 to a 41.5. I know you basically say the same thing in the Pathophysiology section, but again, I think the lead is maybe the most important spot to have that good readability! Otherwise, I think you have great readability for this complex topic, and I love how you explained the pathophysiology in a very clear way.
 * Adherence to topic / Not getting off track: I don't think you have an issue with this at all, you are perfectly on track and I can see your "next steps" are going into management, which I think is awesome. No concerns here!
 * Organization & Flow: You did a great job keeping this topic well organized- you approached it in a very medical fashion (Pathophysiology, Presentation, Physical Exam, Workup, Management) so it makes perfect sense to me, though it may be more unfamiliar to someone who is not in medicine. Someone who may be coming to this page because they were told their loved one has end organ damage will probably find it helpful to have the labs being ordered explained to them, but may be more interested in something like Outcomes. Just food for thought!
 * Use of images and figures : You don't have any images in here yet and may be adding some later (I don't have mine loaded in yet either) but I actually think everything is pretty well explained even without any figures. But again, I have a medical background and many coming to this page might not. I think if you could find an image or figure to add, it would only make it better!
 * Proper use of citations: As far as I can tell, all your citations are appropriate and you always link to the correct source whenever you make a claim to support it!
 * Paraphrasing : Again, as far as I can tell, you make original statements supported by your sources and aren’t going through simply rephrasing everything from the journals you found. Great job!
 * Quality Sources, i.e. resources open to the public : I am super guilty of this in my own article. When not logged in, I can’t access citations 3, 4, 5, or 7 past the abstract :'( However I think those sources are high quality and important, and I feel like since medical writing relies on reputable journals, which themselves require subscriptions, this is always going to be an issue. We can all hope for a future that allows for open access of medical research since I think the public would really benefit from that! I don't think you need to change the sources you've already compiled, but maybe as you delve more into management in your next section, try to find a source that's more open to the public?
 * Check for bias and equal-sided arguments: I don’t see any bias in this article- you clearly explain the causes and workup of end organ damage and there’s not much debate surrounding that!
 * Provide productive and professional critique: You are doing a fantastic job so far and I think you've really nailed the important parts of this subject! I'm looking forward to seeing where else you take the topic by the end of this week. You've already made an considerable improvement to this page and I really don't have much to add beside the minor things I talked about above. I'm confident this is going to be a wonderful addition to the Wikipedia community!

Keep up the awesome work!!

Jess Jesszicc (talk) 17:49, 12 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Hey Jess! Thank you for the feedback! I agree, it can be difficult to break down a topic when we are so far immersed into medicine. I will definitely go back through and try to break down some of the bigger words so that the article is more readable! I also completely agree about the accessibility of articles. If not for access through the school library I would not have been able to access several of the resources that I used. I will look into if I can find other more accessible sources that can be added so that the readers may be able to look into them on their own without restriction. Thank you again for your feedback! Cassie Wpcgb (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2023 (UTC)