User talk:Science505/Hollenhorst plaque

Peer Review

I've broken up my peer review into sections to hopefully help with readability

Lead:

- The introductory sentence is concise and clearly describes your topic

- The lead section is concise overall as well

- However, it does include some information that does not seem to be presented elsewhere in your article. Specifically, the definition of a Hollenhorst plaque does not seem to be described outside of the lead section

- Additionally, the Eponym and Historical Discovery section does not seem to be reflected in your lead section

Overall Structure and Flow

- For the sections present, I think the order and flow are appropriate

- The content of the management and non-standard testing sections are great as they are thorough, well-balanced, and readable

- The article would benefit from a definition section that clearly defines a Hollenhorst plaque (could be taken right from the lead section)

- If not included in the definition section, consider a diagnostics section to include that the plaque is discovered with opthamaloscopy/fundoscopy as that is only included in lead section currently

- I think there could be some consideration to combine the management and non-standard testing sections and then use subheadings to organize; however; I do recognize the merit of having them separate as well

- You could consider taking some information from the Associated Conditions section to make a separate epidemiology section; however; you would probably need additional information to fill out this section

- The Eponym and Historical Discovery section could be reorganized into an Eponym section and a previous research section

- Few occasions of misspelled and missing words

Balanced Coverage

- I think the article is mostly well-balanced at this point. The management and non-standard testing sections are significant chunks of the article, but I think this is appropriate as the topic is a medical exam finding

- Provides a balanced perspective on management options and remains objective

- The Eponym and Historical Discovery may be over-emphasized compared to the rest of the article; the reorganization as described above may help with this

Neutral Content & Adherence to Topic

- Maintained neutrality and adherence to topic well throughout article

Reliable Sources and Citations

- Appropriate use of secondary sources

- The article would benefit from more consistent referencing as there several statement that do not have a citation. I believe the citation is normally placed at the end of your paragraphs, but consistent citations after each statement is normally advised

- The article does rely heavily on your first source. Additional sources would help keep the article unbiased and balanced

Readability

- The readability of the Cause section is appropriate, and I especially appreciated when you would include both the scientific term and layman term

- The readability of the Management, Non-Standard Testing, and Eponym sections are mostly appropriate as well and would only benefit slightly from some word changes to increase readability

- The readability of the Associated condition seems to be more difficulty, but this may be hard to improve as it has to discuss other medical conditions.

Images

- While no images are required for this assignment, it would be interesting to see a Hollenhorst plaque on ophthalmoscopy/fundoscopy

Overall

- For the sections present, I think the structure, content, and flow are great

- Most important changes are more consistent citations, the addition of a definition section, and the addition of a sentence on Eponym in the lead section PartTimeClimber (talk) 19:11, 14 September 2023 (UTC)