Wikipedia:Peer review/Tennis elbow/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Tennis elbow[edit]

(more info)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…My classmates and I have added new sections and new information into Previously existing sections. We would like suggestions as to the quality of the article and maybe some editing.

Thanks, Sltruong (talk) 21:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)KIN 412L group

Finetooth comments: This is a good start but needs a lot of work to reach, say, the GA level. Here are a few suggestions for further improvement.

  • The article needs copyediting, as you suggest in your request for a review. PR can't generally supply that because we are perpetually short-handed. A copyeditor would probably catch and fix small errors like the extra space between the fourth and fifth paragraphs of the lead and the sentences like "Another claim stated that cervical spondylosis which is the wear and tear of the cartilage and bones of the neck" (in the "Causes" section), which is not a complete sentence.
  • WP:MOS#Bulleted and numbered lists suggest using straight prose paragraphs rather than lists when feasible. The existing article includes five such lists; all of them look to me like lists that would read just fine as straight prose.
  • The article's claims seem to be reasonably well-supported by citations to reliable sources. However, the sourcing is inconsistent, and other editors have added a couple of "citation-needed" tags that should be addressed. Beyond that, a good rule of thumb is to include a citation for every extraordinary claim, every claim that has been questioned, every set of statistics, every direct quotation, and every paragraph. If a citation covers an entire paragraph, it should appear at the end of the paragraph; otherwise it will be seen as supporting only a single claim or sentence within the paragraph.
  • Where a link is helpful, it should be added to the first use of a term. For example, ibuprofen should be linked on first use in the "Treatment" section rather than on second use. Ditto for other links.
  • Link terms that many readers are not likely to know already. They are more likely to know "tennis" than "lateral epicondoyle", for example. They are probably more likely to know "elbow" than "tendon". They will probably not know "humerus" and might not know "pathogenesis". These are just examples from the lead. Generally, it's the specialized jargon that most needs explaining or linking to make things clear to a general audience.
  • Citations should be consistently formatted, and they need to be as complete as possible. A good rule of thumb for citations to web pages, for example, is to include author, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and access date, if all of those are known or can be found. I find it handy to use the "cite" family of templates to help arrange the citations. You can find these at WP:CIT. (Don't mix them with the "Citation" family, also found at WP:CIT.) Citation 31 already uses the "cite journal" member of this family of templates, and some of the others may too; thus, you have a handy example of how to do the citations using this method.
  • Avoid addressing the reader directly. In "Examination and tests", for example, a sentence says, "An easy at-home test can be performed to determine whether you have tennis elbow." It's the "you" that's the problem here and elsewhere in the article. Better would be "An easy at-home test may reveal if someone has tennis elbow."
  • After further rewrites, keep in mind that the lead should be a summary of the whole article rather than a set of introductory paragraphs. A good rule of thumb is to include in the lead at least a mention of the main text sections and not to develop material in the lead that does not appear in the main text. WP:LEAD has details.
  • The dab tool at the top of this review page finds two links that go to disambiguation pages instead of their intended targets.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 23:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)