Talk:Rewarming shock
Add topic | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Rewarming shock.
|
Wiki Education assignment: 2025-26 TCOM WikiMed
[edit]
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 March 2026 and 28 March 2026. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Skippitydippity (article contribs). Peer reviewers: AHendon.
— Assignment last updated by Butterchicken228 (talk) 01:18, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
Plan
[edit]I plan on creating and adding details to the sections (introduction, pathophysiology, clinical presentation, prevention and management). Skippitydippity (talk) 15:19, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
Peer review
[edit]Everything in this article is relevant to the topic. The clinical features, pathophysiology, and management/treatment sections provide a solid overview of rewarming shock. I think it would be helpful to the reader to include a brief line in the introduction regarding external vs. internal rewarming methods. This would deepen the reader’s understanding of the point you are trying to make about external rewarming methods not being the cause of this syndrome.
This article is neutral. While you are making a pointed statement about external methods NOT being the cause of rewarming shock, you support this claim with peer reviewed evidence. There are no viewpoints that are over- or under-represented.
The citation links work. I noticed that within a single paragraph (ex, first paragraph), you have multiple citations for the same source. I think it would be more effective/read easier if instead of inserting a citation after each sentence, insert a single citation after a group of sentences of the same source. Examples of where I noticed this include the intro (paragraphs 1 & 2), management & treatment, and prehospital interventions.
Each fact is supported by an appropriate, reliable reference. All citations are from peer reviewed articles are studies, which makes them reliable.
All of the information appears to be up to date with relevant citations from the past 10 years. The only “out of date” citation I noticed was the first study from 2000. However, it looks like you only used this citation to define rewarming shock which should be okay. AHendon (talk) 17:05, 23 March 2026 (UTC)