Talk:Surgical smoke
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
[edit]
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 January 2021 and 3 February 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Medstudent2021. Peer reviewers: Chinnerj.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:47, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Peer Review Feedback
[edit]- Check for readability: This article is overall understandable and uses language that is appropriate for non-medical readers. I might suggest some adjustments to wording and sentence structure to ensure that these factors don't inhibit comprehension. For example, the sentences "Surgical smoke, as a health threat to those exposed to it, has become a growing concern. Studies have demonstrated, depending on several factors, it may contain carcinogens, mutagens, ...." could be changed to the following: "Exposure to surgical smoke has become a growing health concern for medical professionals. Studies have demonstrated that it may contain carcinogens, mutagens, ......". Other sentences can be similarly restructured to maintain readability.
- Adherence to topic / Not getting off track: This article does a nice job of avoiding tangents and staying on the topic at hand. I didn't not any major concerns in this area.
- Organization & Flow: The article is well-organized into three different sections, with good flow from one to the next. For flow within sentences and paragraphs, see notes under the "readability" bullet point.
- Use of images and figures: Nice image demonstrating the use of an electrocautery device during surgery. Other images are optional, but a picture of a smoke evacuation device mentioned in the third section might add interest to the article.
- Proper use of citations: In-text citations and the reference section appears to be properly organized and implemented. I'm unsure if the note at the end of the first section "read more on [1]" is appropriate for Wikipedia.
- Paraphrasing: appropriate language was used throughout the article
- Quality Sources, i.e. resources open to the public: All articles appear too be from reputable sources (e.g. medical societies) and were easily accessible.
- Check for bias and equal-sided arguments: no bias noted in the article.
- Provide productive and professional critique: Overall, this is a very informative article with good references and a solid discussion of the health concerns related to surgical smoke exposure. I believe the main area of improvement would be sentence structure and flow within the article to make it more readable and polished. Otherwise, the article content is great!