Talk:Diffuse alveolar damage

Medicine: Pathology / Pulmonology Mid‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Pathology task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by the Pulmonology task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 October 2020 and 18 November 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: CLwmed.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 March 2020 and 22 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Akettler23.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review

Hello. This is a peer review assessment of this article.

Firstly, I would like to thank you for your effort on expanding this article as your work has surely helped many better understand this topic. Overall, I believe you’ve written a great article! The following is a breakdown of the peer review process based on a provided guideline.

• Readability – The article is written in an easy-to-understand manner. Complicated points are broken down into appropriately sized bits of information. There are multiple successful attempts to define unfamiliar concepts or phrases. Furthermore, important points are reiterated to facilitate ease of understanding. Altogether, this article, in my opinion, scores high in readability.

• Adherence to topic – Most of the article adheres to the topic of diffuse alveolar damage (DAD) very well. Information presented does not extend beyond the scope of the article. In particular areas of the article, there are certain points that may be considered more appropriate for the ARDS article. However, as these points are not currently reflected in the ARDS article and the topic of DAD is so closely related to ARDS, I trust the author’s decision to keep this information within this article.

• Organization & Flow – The article is organized into different sections that each contain relevant information that is limited to its sub-topic. The description of the phases of DAD within the histology/progression header is appropriately divided in an organized bullet system. The flow of the article, starting from definitions and ending with prognosis is also well done. One recommendation is to move some of the information under the definition section to the lead section. This may better facilitate quick understanding of the topic for those who may only read that section. Accordingly, it may also be beneficial to have the phrase “hyaline membranes” be present in the lead sentence.

• Use of images and figures – Both images present in the article are meaningful additions to the information provided in this article. They offer useful visual details, and their descriptions are well explained. The use of a table to define severity of ARDS was also helpful.

• Proper use of citations – All information present within the article was appropriately cited.

• Paraphrasing – Information is well paraphrased from sources without plagiarism.

• Quality Sources/Open access to Public – All 14 sources listed were either from well-respected journals with high-quality information or from websites with articles written by medical experts. 12 of the 14 listed sources provided full access to the public with the two exceptions being source 13 (which only provided an abstract) and 14 (which only provided 2 paragraphs). Nonetheless, the source of the details for the cited information was within the publicly available sections of the source.

• Limiting bias and providing equal-sided arguments – I was unable to recognize any bias within the article. The source of the material was from different sources which likely limited the introduction of any bias. For this topic, there were no apparent source for argument and thus did not necessitate equal presentation of an argument.

Abdulalmounajed (talk) 03:35, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]