The following corrections should be made to the article to improve its content.
There should be more and more reliable references. The external links are the only references listed, and there are only two. Moreover, although the UK’s National Health Service may be a valid and reliable reference, eOrthropod is not. It is a website, not a professional medical source that is reliable. In addition, the UKNHS link is broken and needs to be repaired to work. The claims made have no supporting references. Even if the information is correct, there is no way to verify claims with reliable sources, as there are none listed. It is essential to writing anything that sources are cited or it is plagiarism, whether or not that was the intent of the writer.
Epidemiology was not addressed or included. Some sort of reference to etiology would be a valuable addition to this article.
The symptoms section should not be formatted this way. These are not even bullets; and, although bullets may be appropriate format in certain situations, it would be better suited in paragraph/sentence format.
The following are positive points of this article.
“Treatments” section of this article was well-developed. In addition, proper terminology was used.
The introduction is effective in giving an overview while using correct terminology.
Although it would be helpful to explicitly state such, the risk factors were nicely integrated into the causes section.
NHearn (talk) 05:10, 11 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
3 positives:
1.The whole article is written in a language that fits the standard of an online encyclopedia prose. The whole article is organized and concise.
2.The symptom section is very concise and let the reader know what is signs of the pathology quickly. It lists five symptoms that are representative of the pathology so readers who have the pathology diagnosis themselves easily.
3.The non-surgical treatment section is short, but useful. It mentions about NSAIDs or other antibiotics, which readers who have the pathology can just read the article and take care of themselves.
3 negatives:
1.one of the picture in this article just floats in the article page, it does not have any description. Readers who read this article will certainly be confused by this random picture.
2.The surgical treatment part is a little too short, it could have been more detailed. It also could have include some rehabilitation exercises.
3.The article lacks diagnosis. The article also lacks the pictures of the anatomy that is relevant to the site of the injury. Kin412a (talk) 08:22, 12 May 2012 (UTC)Reply
