User talk:JMWikiProject/Thymic carcinoma

Peer Review
Check for readability:

·      Readability score was 44.4/100 using the readability score by webfx.com and should be easily understood by anyone with a high school reading level.

Adherence to topic / Not getting off track

·      Writing is focused on the topic with only relevant information provided.

Organization & Flow

·      Well organized. Logical flow of information, with topics clearly delineated by section titles.

Use of images and figures

·      Image of a Thymic carcinoma on CT is very helpful.

Proper use of citations

·      Every fact is referenced appropriately.

·      Words that may not be common knowledge are linked with other wikipages. This is a great idea and will improve readability for your audience.

Paraphrasing

·      Written in author’s unique voice.

Quality Sources, i.e. resources open to the public

·      Sources are all available to the public.

·      Sources are all reputable, with a mix of .gov and .org web pages as well as review articles.

·      Sources are all recent, with majority written in the last 5 years and one form 2011.

Check for bias and equal-sided arguments

·      Highlights areas where further research is needed; Thymic carcinoma cell markers have not been identified.

·      Written with a neutral tone.

Suggestions:

·      Adding an arrow or shadowing to demonstrate the thymic mass on the CT image may make it more easily understandable by those unfamiliar with normal anatomy.

·      Consider adding more about paraneoplastic syndromes (specifically myasthenia gravis) to the signs and symptoms section.

·      Under diagnosis you can expand on the findings seen no CT or MRI that distinguish thymic carcinoma from thymoma.

Overall a great read. Well done! Aagino (talk) 04:41, 15 October 2022 (UTC)