 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Review
editI have no access... doi:10.1002/jhm.2335 JFW | T@lk 10:09, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Peer Review
editDear Wikipedian, I was selected to peer review your article as part of my assignment.
Overall you put together a good article with solid supporting evidence that is largely concise and readable but still contains the most pertinent information. Please see some of the specifics from the rubric below for further feedback and suggestions.
Lead - appropriately summarizes the topics that are subsequently discussed in the article while providing adequate levels of context.
There were some minor readability issues in the lead however. The sentence stating "to administer IV therapy (medication, fluid), parenteral nutrition, to obtain..." may be missing a "to" in front of the parenteral nutrition segment: "to administer IV therapy or parenteral nutrition" or "to provide parenteral nutrition" because otherwise the parenteral nutrition segment is the only part of the list without a "to" in front of it. Otherwise the Lead summarizes the rest of the topic well. One comment is you mention the Seldinger technique in the lead, but then I do not see it further discussed in the subsections below.
Organization and flow - makes sense with appropriate subsections and headings. You break down venous access into the important methods of access and discuss those first, which clinically I agree is quite important. One piece of feedback is later in the article you discuss interosseous methods of access. It may make sense to include that up by your methods heading where you discuss peripheral vs central vs midline if it fits in those sections. You also mention some complications in the Peripheral section but then later have a subsection for complications. It may make sense to keep all the complications together rather than spread across a few sections.
Links - you provide copious links to relevant topics branching off your article which is good. There are a few additional links you may want to add such as thrombophlebitis and thrombosis.
Images and Figures - you may want to consider including an image or diagram of the various types of venous access or a picture of the most common access types.
Citations/sources - your citations are largely good and your sources appear open to the public and verifiable. It looks like you may need a citation for your Complications paragraph, but otherwise most of your sections have multiple citations. I do not see evidence of plagiarism as it looks like youve done a good job putting the material into your own words for your article.
Bias/Equal sided arguments - I do not detect any significant bias in your article. It is a fairly non-controversial topic, and you have presented well on various aspects of it without any particular leaning. You present the material in a largely neutral tone that is appropriate for wikipedia.
Overall, you put together a good article that summarizes the key points of the topic. You may want to consider making some of these minor grammatical changes I suggested above as well as considering some minor reorganization as suggested above. Nice work.