User talk:JMWikiProject/Thymic carcinoma
Peer Review
[edit]Check for readability:
· Readability score was 44.4/100 using the readability score by webfx.com and should be easily understood by anyone with a high school reading level.
Adherence to topic / Not getting off track
· Writing is focused on the topic with only relevant information provided.
Organization & Flow
· Well organized. Logical flow of information, with topics clearly delineated by section titles.
Use of images and figures
· Image of a Thymic carcinoma on CT is very helpful.
Proper use of citations
· Every fact is referenced appropriately.
· Words that may not be common knowledge are linked with other wikipages. This is a great idea and will improve readability for your audience.
Paraphrasing
· Written in author’s unique voice.
Quality Sources, i.e. resources open to the public
· Sources are all available to the public.
· Sources are all reputable, with a mix of .gov and .org web pages as well as review articles.
· Sources are all recent, with majority written in the last 5 years and one form 2011.
Check for bias and equal-sided arguments
· Highlights areas where further research is needed; Thymic carcinoma cell markers have not been identified.
· Written with a neutral tone.
Suggestions:
· Adding an arrow or shadowing to demonstrate the thymic mass on the CT image may make it more easily understandable by those unfamiliar with normal anatomy.
· Consider adding more about paraneoplastic syndromes (specifically myasthenia gravis) to the signs and symptoms section.
· Under diagnosis you can expand on the findings seen no CT or MRI that distinguish thymic carcinoma from thymoma.
Overall a great read. Well done! Aagino (talk) 04:41, 15 October 2022 (UTC)