User:Pjp992/Choose an Article

Article Selection


· Radial keratotomy

o  Content

§ Overall fairly complete. There is a little bit of misleading information of the number of surgeries done in the first paragraph.

§ I think information regarding how the surgery is very infrequently done now would be important

§ The paragraph on hexagonal keratotomy may be unnecessary. Seems a little distracting.

o  Tone

§ I think this article is good on tone. I will have to look more into the history of the procedure to see if any developments have been left out.

o  Evaluating sources

§ There are multiple statements that have no citation. I think the biggest way I can improve this article is trying to find citations for some of the claims or by removing the unsupported claims.

§ There is also quite a lot of plagiarism in this article. Direct quotes taken from sources that are not quotes. Needs to be corrected badly.

§ The link to at least one source (second) isn’t even the source listed

o  Talk page

§ Start class + High importance

§ Minimal discussion but there is some from Sept 2022 questioning some of the information’s accuracy.

Secondary sclerosing cholangitis

o  Content

§ Lacking detail. Specifically, more information on diagnosis including laboratory findings and imaging would be useful

§ Too much reference to PSC “may mimic PSC” instead of just describing the symptoms.

§ If possible to find reliably, I would like to include the most common causes

o  Tone

§ I don’t see any problems with the tone.

o  Evaluating sources

§ Similar to previous article, the sourcing needs to be improved. The sources they did use seem reliable, but there are some claims that are not sourced

§ Additionally, there is at least on instance of plagiarism that needs to be rectified “. Its clinical and cholangiographic features may mimic PSC, yet its natural history may be more favorable if recognition is prompt and appropriate therapy is introduced.”

o  Talk page

§ Start class + mid importance

§ No one is commenting on the talk page.

Autoimmune Pancreatitis

o  Content

§ Much more in-depth than previous articles. I think it would be difficult for me to contribute a lot to this article in terms of new information

§ I think the prognosis section could be built upon.

§ This article does a good job focusing on the important parts of the disease (easily confused with pancreatic cancer.

o  Tone

§ No apparent bias or problems with tone

o  Evaluating sources

§ There are a few spots where additional sources are needed, but overall it appears to be well sourced. I wasn’t able to find any information that was obviously plagiarized.

o  Talk page

§ Not active since 2015

§ Start class + mid importance

o  Overall I think this article is a little over my head and the others would be better suited for me. It was very educational to read though!