Talk:Endoscopic endonasal surgery

Peer Review 1

1. Quality of Information: 2

2. Article size: 2

3. Readability: 1

• So much fluff.
• Underlinked, see Links

4. Refs: 2

5. Links: 1

• Underlinked. Many terms/names are not commonly understood by most laypeople, inform them.
• For example, the whole history section has many big or unknown names and 'eustachian tube', transphenoidal, etc...

6. Responsive to comments: 2 - I'll assume

7. Formatting: 2

• Consider changing section 3 to a Surgical Approaches supersection by combining what's currently there with sections 4 and 5

8. Writing: 1

• "in the 1800s when a physician in Frankfurt, Germany by the name of Philipp Bozzini who wanted to see the inner workings of the body" - delete "who"
• There are too many small grammatical errors to list, just proofread please and make sure things are singular or plural when they're supposed to be, and that there aren't extraneous words, or words missing.
• A lot of unnecessary words throughout, like "The role of an endocrinologist that is on a team preparing for an endoscopic endonasal surgery" does not need 'that is on a team'. Sentences like this are all over, be consice.

9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2

10. Outstanding?: 1.5

• For Endoscopic Instrumentation, perhaps show a picture of what these broadcasts look like. I understand you're dealing with the byte limit, but a lot of that has to do with my comment under writing, you can free up a bit of space to enable you to add things that would make this a pretty outstanding article.

• The article is very detailed, but my attention gets lost in your fluffy writing. Clear things up and it'll be excellent.

_______________

Total: 16.5 out of 20

Alec DeFilippo (talk) 19:15, 22 November 2013 (EST)

Response to comments

I appreciate your comments, and I am trying to fix that problem now.

Jlukeedwards (talk) 20:27, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Peer Review 2

---

1. Quality of Information: 2 Solid information, well referenced.

2. Article size: 2 Almost over the limit, but within range as of 18th.

3. Readability: 1 Very wordy. This article was difficult for me to follow with some of the higher level physiological terms, so i can't imagine a layperson would be able to understand some of the terms used. Try adding more links to physiological structures to help out with understanding.

4. Refs:2 2/3 of the most heavily cited references were secondary.

5. Links: 1 Physiology terms and surgical jargon underlinked. Made it hard to follow.

6. Responsive to comments: 2 No comments besides recent peer reviews have been made.

7. Formatting: 2 I thought the flow made sense.

8. Writing: 1.0 Very wordy and full of jargon, but i took off on that in readibility (previous reviewer also mentioned this by requesting more concise wording). Quite a few grammar issues, but nothing so severe it hinders understanding. Pictures would have been extremely helpful in understanding the topic. Definately worth losing some information to make room for it. Thumbnails don't take up too much space and will certainly help out.

9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2 The real name was specified for the user account on the November 16th version of the user talk page.

10. Outstanding?: 2 Pretty useful information, definately a technique that has been around for some time, and i'm surprised wikipedia didn't already have an article for it. Good catch.

_______________

Total: 17 out of 20 Michael K. Duke (talk) 03:13, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

---

Response to questions

Thanks you for your critique. I have been working on the jargon, and I think I got most of it. I hope I fixed the problems you brought up.

Jlukeedwards (talk) 20:29, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Peer Review 3

1. Quality of Information: 2

2. Article size: 2

3. Readability: 1

4. Refs: 2

5. Links: 1

6. Responsive to comments: 2

7. Formatting: 2

8. Writing: 1

9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2

10. Outstanding?: 1 _______________

Total:  16 out of 20

1) Information seems correct and relevant, supported by many recent references.

2) Article size as of Nov 18 was 24,996 bytes, falling into the specified range. The size is currently over 25kb. Be sure to clear this with Dr. Potter if you haven't already.

3) Long article filled with only words. Exploring every single approach may be superfluous.

4) 13 references present, good sources.

5) Many necessary terms not linked. In just the opening paragraph you can link Base of skull, Nasal cavity, Sphenoid bone, and Pituitary gland.

6) No comments have been made on the talk page. You can promote discussion on this topic by describing what you are trying to accomplish on the talk page.

7) Well organized in accordance with wiki standards.

8) Long article filled with only words. See if some of your sentences can be pruned of excessive wording. Exploring every single approach may be superfluous as well.

9) Check.

10) Try adding a few figures to help give a visualization about some aspect of the surgery. It may also help to break up some of the wordiness. Overall good article on an important topic.

Sdavis32 (talk) 21:51, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Response to comments

Thanks for your response. I added a few figures that I hope will help. That is the only one that is free use. I contacted several people and they are all very proud of their pictures.

Jlukeedwards (talk) 20:32, 9 December 2013 (UTC)