User talk:James Kemos/sandbox
Sarah Jane (SJ) Tsang Min Ching ENGW 3307 - Unit 3 Peer Review
Author: James Kemos
Topic: Hernia repair
Summary: The author describes the differences between two methods that are used to repair a hiatal hernia. The article also provides information on the complications, outcomes and benefits associated with the two different methods. In the article, the author puts forward the case that laparoscopic hernia repair is the best method to be used because it has greater benefits in the form of reduced post-operative pain, shorter recovery time, and shorter hospital stay.
Major Points: In his article, the author used a lot of specific and complex words or phrases that are sometimes hard to understand. To remedy that, the author should either define the words or provide more links to other Wikipedia articles. Some examples are: "rolling hiatal hernias", "sliding hiatal hernias", "fundus", "mediastinum". Also, "Nissen Fundoplication" should be linked to its Wikipedia article (I checked and there is a Wikipedia article on that)
The "Nissen Fundoplication" section provides a lot of details on the procedure. The author should do the same and provide more details on the procedures in the "Hernia Types" section.
The flow of the "Complications" section should be worked on. The author should consider breaking this section into three sub-sections: General complications, Complications using the general laparoscopic procedure, and Complications using the Nissen Fundoplication procedure. This would, in my opinion, improve the flow of the article and avoid repetition of information.
Additionally, in the "Complications using the general laparoscopic procedure" section, more information and details should be provided. What is the % for the complication rate? What is the % for the rate of failure? Furthermore, the author mentions a risk when using anesthesia. Is it in the scope of the article to mention the risk? Providing information on the risk will, in my opinion, make the article more interesting and provide more strength to the argument of the paper.
In the "Outcomes" section, more details should be provided. For the lower morbidity rate, the author should provide the rate numbers that support this information. Moreover, what is meant by potential wound infection? Is it less? More? Similar? The author should be more precise about the meaning of that.
More details should be provided in the "Benefits" section. The author mentions shorter recovery time and shorter hospital stay. What are the actual data that support this information? If possible, the author should provide data that clearly show the comparison between the two (i.e laparoscopic hernia repair vs open hernia repairs). The author should also consider merging the "outcomes" and "benefits" sections together as this will help to avoid repetition of information.
Minor Points: In the "Hernia Types" section, the first two sentences should be merged together to improve the flow of ideas.
In the first part of the article, the author is comparing laparoscopic hernia repair procedure to Nissen Fundoplication procedure. However, in the second part, the author compares laparoscopic hernia repairs to open hernia repairs. Are open hernia repairs and the Nissen Fundoplication procedure the same? If not, then the author should clarify this and make it less ambiguous.
In the reference section, a source should only appear once. This can be done by creating a name for the source and then use the name every time the source is cited. For example, the article by Dana Bartlett should be cited like this: [1] And when the source is cited again, only the created name is used [1]
All the in-text citation and the links should be removed. The author should also consider adding an image to the article. The image should either be taken from Wikimedia commons or be the author's own image.
MauriGirl14 (talk) 20:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Adriana Nguyen / ENGW3307 Peer Review
Summary The article introduces a technology to repair hiatal hernia.
Major point
- Structure: I have notice most Wiki article has a general introduction at top before table of content, instead of a separate intro section. It's also great that the author has See also section - would this be used for external link? I have search for how to redirect to other wiki page - using For|content|name of article.
- It seems that the benefits section is a comparison between one and the other method of treatment. I suggest to combine this section into Complication section.
Minor point
- I notice Hernia Types section does not contain any citation, and ends with an incomplete sentence. (I hope this wasn't an error in saving the project..)
- I found an article on "anesthesia" on Wiki, maybe the author could add a blue print to this.
- Some citation in Complications section needs to be clean. e.g (Lasalandra, 2013), or (Van Dan heuvel)AdrianaN23 (talk) 04:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)