Wikipedia:Peer review/Combined small cell lung carcinoma/archive1
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
Ladies and Gentlemen:
I've listed this article for peer review because I have been through virtually every reference of substance I can find on the topic, and have attempted to condense it and present the accumulated knowledge as best I can.
No doubt there are still some problems with it, but in truth, I believe it is just about finished up to the very limit of my own capabilities, and it needs attention from someone who is truly an expert on the subject (lung cancer pathology).
I am, or course, still willing to work hard on it, but would be greatly appreciative of detailed comments on what I can do to improve it. A fresh pair (or several pairs) of eyes, I guess.
With my thanks in advance, and my very best regards: Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 02:27, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Reference quality is great but I'd like to see some secondary sources. Prose quality is good. Lede section needs to be longer as it does not adequately summarize the entire article. Reference formatting in not consistent; I suggest that all cites use a citation template. Naked urls esp need to be formatted. Cite 9 is broken. ==mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 00:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: I agree with all of mav's comments above. This is good overall and here are some suggestions for improvement.
- The only image seems to have copyright issues - File:Combined SCLC-SqCC.jpg is on Commons under a free license, but the image clearly is labeled copyright 2006 Elsevier Inc. in the lower left corner. Since Elsevier holds the copyright, it cannot be used here. If it is your image, but the copyright has been assigned to ELsevier, then you need to get permission to use it here. See WP:IMAGE#Finding_images_on_the_Internet. Anything produced by an agency of the federal government (NIH, etc.) would be free, or it might be if you contacted someone who has published nice images that they would release them under a free license.
- The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article and needs to be expanded as mav noted. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way - please see WP:LEAD
- I would also say that the lead can be written at a more general level as an overview for the non-specialist.
- Look for places to add wikilinks - for example the eight major taxa of lung carcinomas - the first one at least Squamous cell carcinoma has an article and I am guessing all of them do.
- Per the Manual of style (MOS) numbers under ten are generally spelled out (so "eight major taxa", not "8 major taxa").
- Also per the MOS articles usually use "percent" instead of %
- The article has several places with short (one or two sentence) paragraphs. These usually interrupt the flow of the prose and if possible they should be combined with other paragraphs or perhaps expanded.
- Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
- I have also looked at the article Large cell lung carcinoma with rhabdoid phenotype and notice some ofthe same issues there - I will be reviewing it next and for completeness will re-use some of this review there. Thanks for your work on this important topic.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)