Wikipedia:Peer review/Brain ischemia/archive1
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for November 2008.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to know how I could improve this article even more so that it can eventually be removed from the stub class.
Thanks, Saunc2011 (talk) 23:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Comments from Apterygial
Hi. My knowledge of Biology is extremely limited, so I'm going to review this from an outsider's viewpoint. A week is along time to wait at PR and I want to give some sort of feedback.
- To start off with, this article is already beyond stub class. It gives more than a "than a dictionary definition" and does provide meaningful content. This probably a start-class article.
Lead
- Try "Brain ischemia, also known as cerebral ischemia,..."
- "Brain ischemia (or cerebral ischemia) is the localized reduction of blood flow to the brain or parts of the brain due to arterial obstruction or systematic hyperfusion." I can guess what arterial obstruction is but I don't have a clue what systematic hyperfusion is. Are there are any other pages you can link these terms to in order to provide a better explanation? Failing that, you may have to provide a short explanation. The same goes for brain hypoxia and brain infarction. The lead should draw in readers, overly complex terms in the first few sentences will just switch them off.
- I'm not a huge fan of quotes in the lead. Is there any way you can rewrite that section in your own words? See WP:QUOTE for more on this.
- The lead is a little short. It is not, at this point, hugely important, but I would consider adding another paragraph dealing with symptoms or treatment.
Background information
- Consider renaming to "Background".
- I'm no expert, but are you sure brain ischemia is a disease?
- "Therefore, protecting the human brain from brain ischemia is very important." A few things: just the human brain?; Is it important because beacuse it causes brain damage? Or is it important because interruption of the blood flow to the brain can cause it?
- I would consider merging this section with What happens (I'll get to that title).
Symptoms
- The second sentence basically makes the first redundant. You need to say something like "The symptoms of brain ischemia can vary in duration" and explain why.
- "Arteries that branch from the Internal Carotid Artery may experience symptoms such as blindness in one eye, weakness in one arm or leg, or weakness in one entire side of the body." This to me reads that "arteries may experience symptoms such as blindness in one eye," etc. Correct this so the subject is clearer. Same with the next sentence.
What happens
- "What happens" is a terribile title. Consider changing to "Causes" or "Effects".
- "The brain is not able to switch to anaerobic metabolism and does not have any long term energy stored, so the levels of ATP drop rapidly." I know what ATP is because I was half listening one day in high school science, but other readers may not be so lucky.
- "...the cells begin to lose the ability they have to maintain..." they have is redundant.
- "These losses then lead to several untoward developments during brain ischemia. Those developments are:" Change to ""These losses then lead to..." and then list the developments.
- "Also, in Brain ischemia, the removal of metabolic wastes is slowed." Two things: this article is about brain ischemia, you don't need to reintroduce it. Could this sentence be merged into the previous one? As is it looks like an afterthought.
Types
- "Basically, focal brain ischemia is a stroke". The "basically" is redundant; it either is a stroke or it isn't. If it isn't, does it present similar symptoms?
- It's worth remembering that not everyone who is affected by brain ischemia is a patient at the time.
Causes
- "Many different diseases or abnormalities may cause ischemia, whether it be ischemia of the brain, lungs, or heart. A few of these causes are sickle cell anemia, the compression of blood vessels, Ventricular Tachycardia, plaque build up in the arteries, blood clots, extremely low blood pressure as a result of heart attack, and congenital heart defects." These two sentences should be combined into one sentence: "Many different diseases or abnormalities, such as sickle cell anemia, compression of blood vessels, Ventricular Tachycardia, plaque build up in the arteries, blood clots, extremely low blood pressure as a result of heart attack, or congenital heart defects, may cause ischemia." That's still fairly long, so I would think of ways to reduce the list of diseases or abnormalities so they only apply to brain ischemia.
- Avoid the word "also". In most cases it really isn't necessary and can be cut out with minimal damage.
- I just skimmed through the paragraph and found "Therefore, brain ischemia can result from events other than heart attacks." We already know that from earlier in the article, so this isn't such a revelation.
Presentation
- Avoid one sentence paragraphs.
- On a side note, I find it interesting that death is linked but some of the more complex words in the article are not.
Related conditions
- "This condition is most commonly seen in elderly depressed patients." Depressed how? Are the patients depressed or is their vascular system.
- "You need to explain how this is related to justify why it gets a place in this article.
Other effects
- Should be merged with What happens.
General
- There's a bit of inconsistency between "brain ischemia" and "Brain ischemia". My preference is the former, but you should pick one.
- The same goes for the rest of the article; capital letters tend to pop-up at random and then disappear at the next mention.
- In the references you do not have to say "in English". As this is the English Wikipedia, there is a general assumption that sources are in English. If it's in any other language, you would then have to say so.
- The article is in sore need of more wikilinking. The grey text shown is a bit of a turnoff, and it would be very useful to be able to jump to appropriate pages when reading. A lot of the words mentioned in there I have no idea what they mean, and unless I want to re-type them into the search bar I will stay ignorant.
- Add a See also section. This should list related medical problems. You can get an idea of this by looking at the templates down the bottom of the article. See also (so to speak) WP:SEEALSO.
- I haven't had time to look at the references, but make sure they are solid. See WP:SOURCE.
- Look at what the semi-automated probe suggested (the link is at the top of this review). There is nothing there that I disagree with, and combating those problems will get you well on the way to a better article.
Overall, a decent article. It certainly needs some work, and the grammar is fairly clumsy. As I opened, it isn't a stub, but it certainly isn't C-Class either. I can see on your userpage that you want to get this to GA or further. Contact some people at WikiProject Medicine and the Neurology task force. I am willing to continue helping you, but I can provide little assistence on the technical stuff, beyond what I have seen on Scrubs. Good luck, and happy editing! Apterygial talkstalkinsane idea 06:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)