User talk:ACBurnette/sandbox

Peer review
Based on the instructions in the Peer Review training module, I am starting a new section on your Talk page to do my peer review of the article you are editing.Amole90 (talk) 04:50, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

The lead sentence of the article may be a bit redundant, although it may be difficult to alter the description since the definition of back pain is self-explanatory. I would suggest perhaps changing the wording: "Back pain is any discomfort of the back," just to add some variability to the sentence. Along that same theme, the word "may" is used multiple times in the first paragraph of the article. Can consider changing to other words, such as "can", just to improve readability. I think the epidemiology mentioned in the leading section is very good! Another factor that stands out in the lead section of the article is the space devoted to explaining in parentheses what certain terms mean. However, these terms are also appropriately linked to other Wikipedeia articles that would give the same information. So I think the article would be more succinct if, in general, linked words/terms are not followed by definitions, since the info can be found by clicking the link.

There are some citations that need to be added under the Associated conditions section. However, I would suggest that the first paragraph in this section (first 3 sentences) is irrelevant to this section and could be removed. The following sentence and list of conditions in this section is sufficient as a starting point. Otherwise, I think the info in this section is overall well cited and a great summary of associated conditions! Under Causes, the second sentence is very similar to a sentence used in the lead section, so you can consider removing it in the Causes section. Also in this section, I think it would be helpful to have more words linked, such as "ligaments", "intervertebral disc", and "foraminal stenosis". The risk factors section could include more info, if there are in fact more risk factors.

The Diagnosis and Prevention sections are great! They are well cited and very succinct.

The first 2 paragraphs under Management could include more citations to support the info presented. To keep in line with the Management heading, I would consider changing the sub-headings to "Non-medical management", "Medical management", and "Surgical management". In the second bullet point under Non medication, the last two sentences appear to reference the same study. I would add the citation to the next to the last sentence as well to clarify what study is being referenced.

This is a minor detail, but in the first sentence of the third paragraph under the Surgery section, "compressing on" can simply be "compressing". Another sentence in this section, "A discectomy is performed when the intervertebral disc have herniated or torn," should say "has" instead of "have". A citation is probably needed for the first sentence of the last paragraph of this section that talks about surgical treatment for spinal epidural abscess.

I think including a section about Pregnancy was a great choice, since this is a common problem for pregnant women! I think the section would benefit from additional citations, as well as links for some of the terms, such as Apgar scores and multifidus. The Economics section is also a great section for this article, but citations are needed.

The Evolutionary perspective section seems irrelevant to the overall theme of the topic of this article and provides an unbalanced presentation of ideas, making the article biased, since it completely ignores the Creationist perspective. I would consider removing this section.

Overall, I think a great job has been done of incorporating Foreground info into the article, with multiple references to relatively recent studies! This may be something that does not need to be changed, but Reference 4 did not take me directly to an article, but rather to a list of articles about Global Burden, so I wasn't sure which article discussed the info presented in the Wikipedia article. However, I am sure someone could go through the articles that the link goes to in order to confirm the info presented in the Wikipedia article. The doi link for Reference 9 does not directly link to the article, but the PMID works just fine. Same for References 12, 23, 30, 43, 47. Reference 26 has multiple references within it, so I did not know if this was something that needed to be addressed but wanted to point it out just in case. Reference 31 links to the MUSC login page. Same for References 35 and 45. Otherwise, in general, all Reference links worked appropriately.

This peer review is super long, but I hope it is helpful! I think the article does a great job of covering the main areas related to the topic of back pain!Amole90 (talk) 03:00, 10 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Just wanted to point out something I did not notice until now when glancing over the article once again. It should be a minor change, but I noticed that the first citation is within a sentence. Although I believe it is right next to the word that is referenced in the citation, I think it should still go at the end of the sentence. However, I may be wrong on this, but with your best interest in mind, I didn't want to notice it and not make the suggestion, just in case it does in fact need to be changed. Again, the article is great!Amole90 (talk) 02:26, 12 December 2017 (UTC)