Wikipedia:Peer review/Amaurosis fugax/archive1
I am looking for any feedback to make this article better. Kilbad 00:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Have a look over at WP:MEDMOS for guidelines (Note: we are currently in the process of resurrecting discussion on those guidelines, please contribute on the talk page). In particular, the top level headings will give you suggestions as to topics to discuss, how to structure the article and what order might be best.
- Symptoms should be first. Beginning the article with a discussion on a historical and fairly academic classification change doesn't really inspire the general reader. The lead needs to be expanded and encourage the reader. How common is this, is it serious?
- Talking of which, the article's audience needs reworked. It is clearly aimed at advising other health professionals – the use of "diagnostic workup", "are recommended" and "should" are a give-away. Changing the article for the general reader will not be easy for such a complex subject. Currently it is too technical. Whilst some technical paragraphs are OK, there should still be others (particularly at the start of sections) where a general reader can cope without consulting a medical dictionary.
- The article is currently imbalanced with too much on the various causes. It might help to restrict the content to just the common causes. The reader isn't helped by being overloaded with obscure stuff that only interests the writers of House. The Ocular origin section is weak. For example, how, exactly, does myopia cause this?
- There are lots of bullet-point list, which are OK for an initial brain-dump but you need to expand these to flowing prose.