| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it was required of me from my professor as the crteria for a group project
Thanks, Koachinyung (talk) 06:01, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
- Comments by Dana Boomer
The main issue with the article at the moment is the almost complete lack of referencing. The anatomy, classification, diagnosis and non-surgical sections are completely unreferenced, and the surgical section contains a majority of unreferenced information. While what references exist are technically reliable, it is better for medical articles to be based on actual medical sources, rather than about.com and the ACC. This could include review articles in medical journals, medical textbooks, etc. See WP:MEDMOS for specifics. It looks like quite a few of the external links could be used to reference the information given in the article. Other thoughts:
- Additional linking is needed, especially to medical or sports terms that won't be familiar to many readers.
- The lead should be a summary of the article, and as such, should not contain unique information. Bullet points are also generally discouraged when the information can easily be presented as text - this is especially true in the lead of an article.
At this point, as I said above, the biggest issue is the lack of referencing. Once this is addressed, I would suggest asking someone from WP:WikiProject Medicine to double check compliance with WP:MEDMOS and proper layout for medical articles. Dana boomer (talk) 15:26, 15 May 2012 (UTC)