Wikipedia:Peer review/Alcoholism/archive1

Alcoholism
This article has taken a beating lately, but it's definitely shaping up to be providing valuable information, and Twintone requested that it be put up for pier review. I would like to request comments regarding the completeness, formatting, and audience appeal of this article. I'm particularly looking for "what have we missed" perspective, "this is really meaningless to me", "this isn't explained very well", and possibly input on a "common misconceptions" section, if appropriate. Robert Rapplean 21:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The article is undercited, and doesn't appear to refer to the highest quality medical sources. I suggest a thorough read of WP:RS focusing on the guidelines for medical articls.  WP:MEDMOS might help orient your work, and a look at Cystic fibrosis will give you an idea of how references should look.  Don't forget to include PMID cites for all medical studies, which are in short supply as references on the article now.  It's also missing a medical info box (see AIDS, Tourette syndrome, cystic fibrosis.) Sandy 22:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * i've finally finished peer reviewing/copyediting. Some overall comments:


 * This article needs forked articles; identification/diagnosis, effects and treatment are all too long & multifacited to not do so. I meant, this article is big, like 30k, and it gets a little tough to stick with the article when it's this daunting. It took me like a week to get through it myself for Peer Review/Copyedit.


 * More cites. It isn't usually an NPOV thing, but alcoholism is a very studied condition, and there just isn't any excuse not to have a shit-ton of sources to this baby. Someone might also look around userpages for a substance abuse counselor or something to help with these.


 * A lot of the sections seem sort of disconnected; i even caught a few repeats of something that had been said in a previous part of the article. Like a good essay, each needs to lead into each other to make a better flow.


 * Stop using that damn word 'result'. ;) Getting 'results' is one thing, but having everything 'the result of this' and 'resulting in that' makes this article seem like a robot.


 * As previously mentioned, more diagrams and images would better this article. Also, i know there is a ton of statistics out there, and it'd be great to have this article peppered in them.


 * Anyways, i've really enjoyed working on this baby, and i'll be around to help it out. JoeSmack Talk (p-review!) 17:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 01:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)