Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead:
The user has updated the lead by adding new content and resolving grammatical errors. The introductory sentence provides a concise and clear explanation of omental cake. The lead does not include brief summaries of the sections as there is only one section. Consider moving the last sentence to after the third sentence since both have to do with neoplastic etiologies of omental cake.
Content:
The content added to the article is relevant and up to date. Considering that the most likely etiology of omental cake is malignancy, adding a section dedicated to neoplastic causes of omental cake would be beneficial. The user provides neoplastic and infectious causes of omental cake. Perhaps comment on other causes of omental cake. The second reference states inflammatory changes to the peritoneum can lead to omental cake. The third reference also talks about extramedullary hematopoiesis as a potential cause for omental cake.
Tone and Balance:
The content added to the article by the user is presented in a neutral manner with no biases.
Sources and References:
The information is obtained from reliable peer-reviewed articles and is accurate to the sources. Although the second reference provides a good source of information, it is a case study. Specifically the second sentence in the lead can be bolstered by providing additional references describing the imaging findings of omental cake. The fourth source is a website, additional journal articles, textbook references, or systematic reviews would be beneficial.
Organization:
The article is currently listed as a Stub article. The lead is well organized, concise, and clear to read.
Images and Media:
User previously added image that was removed. Addition of a radiographic image of omental cake from an open source would be beneficial.
Overall impression:
Overall the addition of new contents has greatly improved the article. Additional sections, references, and images would help this article move beyond a Stub article.
