Wikipedia:Peer review/Neuroacanthocytosis/archive1
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is part of a class project and I would like to get constructive feedback and criticism. I would appreciate any help that is given!
Thanks, Saralo16 (talk) 22:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Comments from Colin This topic covers a group of syndromes that have been classified as "Neuroacanthocytosis". In some ways, this makes it a harder topic to deal with than if it covered just one entity. The biggest problem with the article at present is that it contains four articles within it, and three of them actually already have articles on Wikipedia: McLeod syndrome, chorea acanthocytosis, and pantothenate kinase-associated neurodegeneration. Arguably Huntington's Disease-like 2 deserves its own article. The sections on these diseases are structured like mini-articles rather than being just a summary of the full article. It would probably be best to beef up the individual syndrome articles with the material you have here, and organise these articles' sections per WP:MEDMOS suggested headings. That leaves this article having shorter sections on the four main syndromes per [[WP:SUMMARY].
Structuring an article that covers a group of subjects is not easy. You may get some ideas from reading different sources that deal with the Neuroacanthocytosis syndromes together, to see how they compare/contrast/discuss them.
See my suggestions at Talk:Osteochondritis dissecans#Lead for ways of dealing with jargon.
The lead sentence is your chance to capture a reader and make him want to continue. Don't blow it with jargon that isn't explained or isn't necessary at that stage. Make sure your lead section is comprehensive and lay-reader-friendly. See WP:LEAD for more details. It can often help to write the lead last, after you have written all the body sections.
The classification of syndromes as Neuroacanthocytosis appears to be difficult and some of the literature misleading. Make sure you follow the latest thinking from the best sources. Since the History section covers some syndromes that are no longer so-classified, it might help to move that section to the end, to avoid confusing the reader early on. I'm not sure the source you have for the History section does a good job of including/excluding the right syndromes.
Unfortunately, Medpedia is not considered a reliable source and shouldn't be cited as a source here. It is a Wiki like Wikipedia, and although the editors are MDs or PhDs, it doesn't really have the editorial rigour we need. However, make use of their articles for ideas and use their sources to guide you as to what to read.
The NINDS Factsheets and Genetics Home References (NLM) are reliable but not the first-class level of sources you'd need if you ever intended to aim for FA. They are OK, but referring only to online web sources indicates that perhaps your literature search hasn't been more comprehensive than what Google returns. Both these sources are very good at explaining jargon and complex facts in a lay-friendly way, so you can learn from their approach. Just make sure you don't plagiarise their text :-).
Have a read of WP:MEDMOS and WP:MEDRS, which are the two guidelines for medical articles.
I've added some sources on the article talk page, but I'm sure there are more if you search. Both Google Scholar and PubMed are appropriate for searching the academic literature. Google Books is good both for reading the bits of books they let you, and for identifying books to get from the library.
The book edited by Adrian Danek on "Neuroacanthocytosis Syndromes" would appear to be a must-have for this topic. If you can't get it locally, perhaps an interlibrary loan might help.
Don't be disheartened if it seems there is lots to do. What you've added looks generally good (but I'm no doctor and haven't spent much time cross-checking the facts with the sources), it just needs a bit of re-organising. The important thing is to just chip away at it and do what you can. If you want another opinion on any of this, I recommend GrahamColm (talk · contribs).
Regards, Colin°Talk 23:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)