Talk:WHO Surgical Safety Checklist

Medicine 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.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 June 2020 and 27 June 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Winged Scapula. Peer reviewers: HaniyaSahi.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:46, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 2020 Osmosis Wikipedia-Editing Course Plan[edit]

Hello! As part of the June 2020 Wikipedia Editing Course offered through Osmosis.org, I am editing this Wikipedia page, with the following aims:

Include background material that covers the necessity and development of the WHO Surgical Safety Checklist
Revise and expand the explanation of each section of the checklist so that:
- Each item has less jargon and is more understandable at a lower reading comprehension level
- Pertinent topics have links to relevant Wikipedia articles
Include information from more recent publications on the impact of safety checklists on relevant metrics
Update the citation list to include up-to-date links

This project runs until the end of the month of June. I look forward to improving this article and seeing feedback! Winged Scapula (talk) 20:49, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 2020 Osmosis Wikipedia Editing Course Peer-Review[edit]

1. Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? You have done a good job of keeping the content concise and relevant to the topic. There are no trivial facts included that may distract the reader or take away from the flow of the article.

2. Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? The article appears to be neutral. You have presented the content of the checklist and the history and reasoning behind its creation, implementation, and use in present day without appearing biased towards the topic.

3. Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I do not feel as though any viewpoints are over or underrepresented. You have focused on your topic but have also presented other checklists used in surgery that might complement The Who checklist or may be used in other countries or for other similar procedures.

4. Check the citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article? All citation links are in working order. All sources support the claims in the article although and you have done a good job of including more secondary and tertiary sources.

5. Is each fact supported by an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted? All facts are supported by appropriate and reliable references. Most information is coming from WHO guidelines and peer reviewed secondary/tertiary sources. The references appear to be neutral, although it is hard for me to note bias, for example any biases or conflicts of interest on part of the WHO.

6. Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that should be added? All information appears to be up to date and relevant. HaniyaSahi (talk) 19:48, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]