Wikipedia:Peer review/Osteochondritis dissecans/archive2
- 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 in the hopes that I may nominate it as a Feature Article Candidate. While well-referenced with the information presented, I am sure it could use some elaboration on section such as "Prognosis." Your input would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks, FoodPuma 23:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Comments
The "Bibliography" textbooks don't have many citations in the article. It would be preferable to use in-line book citations. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Done
Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article. Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement.
- For a layperson, the lead is very technical and intimidating. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article - can it be made a bit more accessible? My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but treatment and epidemiology seem not to be in the lead. Please see WP:LEAD
- Also try to avoid or explain medical jargon as well as provide context for the reader. For example "subchondral bone" is not explained until the Pathophysiology section (nor is it linked). Or what is the Talar dome in Epidemiology? See WP:JARGON and WP:PCR
- There are several bullet point and numbered lists in the article that might read and flow better if converted to prose
- There are also several short (one or two sentence) paragraphs and even sections that would flow better if combined with others or perhaps expanded
- The Infobox image has no arrow(s) to point out the symptoms and does nothing for me - I also note it is a knee as are the other two human images, should the lead say it is especially common in knees?
- Since you already say dogs, I would just link German Shepherd Dog as German Shepherd
- I would put the History section much earlier in the article, as well as a general description of what is going on
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). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)