User talk:GreyCanary21/Oncotic pressure

Sam's Peer Review

I don't think that discussing the history will be that helpful of an addition, although it depends on how much and what exactly you mean by that. Adding the equation and illustration I think would be quite helpful, as the article as-is seems rather confusing to me. Having the bit on the definition/derivation for "oncotic" is nice. The effect on the cardiovascular system would also be a fine thing to add. I'm not sure about how useful or necessary it will be to add the part about significance in medical treatment, I would need to see a bit more specifically what you intend to do. You could potentially use that as a way of integrating some stuff about IV-drips, which would definitely be good. I definitely agree that the section about "Types of fluids" seems rather unrelated and thoroughly incomplete. If you had a bit more specifically what you intend to add I could add a bit more helpful commentary. SamLovesScience (talk) 05:35, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Updated review

This is much better than before. Adding the figures was definitely a good thing. The two things I noticed that I would change now are first, since you include the Starling equation, it would be good if you defined all of the variables. Especially as you already say the different things that it relates, you can just put in parentheses after each one what the symbol is, so that wouldn't add much in the way of characters, and would make it more understandable without having to go read the article on the Starling equation. I also think that organizationally it would make a bit more sense to cover the etymology first (before the description). At least, that is what I recall having seen more often, perhaps because it is a pretty short section and usually not terribly relevant, so it is nice to have it right at the front, rather than breaking up the flow of the rest of the article. SamLovesScience (talk) 23:59, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Austin's Peer Review

Well done: You have made many great improvements to the wiki article! This article is much better than what it was before your changes. Great job adding 7 references. This makes it much easier for others to go in and fact-check the information. The pictures/diagrams help a lot! Good job adding "It is suspected to" in the introduction where the previous article talked about something that wasn't certain. I like your additions to the description and including the Starling equation, and your addition of sections on etymology and physiological impact. The physiological impact section is particularly interesting and insightful.

Further suggested improvements: The very first paragraph of the article seems very wordy and uses a lot of highly technical terms, which make it difficult to understand clearly. If possible, it would be nice to split this paragraph in half, simplify some wording, or add a shorter, simpler paragraph before that one. That would help readers to not get lost in the first paragraph. The etymology section states that oncotic comes from 'onco' and 'otic'. It states that 'otic' means having a relationship to the ear. That definition seems confusing. What does oncotic pressure have to do with the ear? Perhaps you could add a clarification in the etymology section that explains this more or you could add a disclaimer that the term is not used when referring to ears anymore, so that it doesn't confuse the audience.

Very well done! It is informative and interesting! --AJclarifies (talk) 03:34, 10 December 2021 (UTC)