Wikipedia:Peer review/Chronic periodontitis/archive1

Chronic periodontitis
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take it to featured article status (it is one of the most common diseases in the world!)

Thanks, Ashley Payne (talk) 01:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments from
 * You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, and my first suggestion would be to get your references into order. A number of your website references lack publisher and/or last access dates, which are the bare minimum needed for WP:V. Books need publisher, author, and page number on top of title. When you've got those mostly straightened out, drop me a note on my talk page and I'll be glad to come back and look at the actual sources themselves, and see how they look in terms of reliability, like I would at FAC. A good idea is to check out other disease FAs to see how they are done, which should help you with referencing issues. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 18:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is a good start, contains much useful information about an important topic, and is coming from an author who knows a lot about the subject. Even so, it is not yet of GA quality, let alone FA, for several reasons. The main problem, as I see it, is that much of the article seems to have been written with a professional audience in mind. The cure isn't to speak to "the patient" from a position of authority but to find neutral, declarative, language supported by reliable sources. In the highly technical places, the cure is to translate, insofar as possible, into plain English. This is no easy trick, but I'm sure it can be done. Here are my other suggestions.


 * You'll need illustrations for FA and probably for GA.
 * The lead should be a summary or abstract of the whole article. My rule of thumb is to include at least a mention of each of the main text sections. WP:LEAD has details.
 * "Patients should realize that the gingival inflammation and bone destruction are largely painless. Hence, people may wrongly assume that painless bleeding after teeth cleaning is insignificant, although this may be a symptom of progressing chronic periodontitis in that patient." - Suggestion for more neutral (rather than judgmental) language: "Gingival inflammation and bone destruction are largely painless even when they cause bleeding after teeth cleaning. Although painless, the bleeding may be a symptom of progressing chronic periodontitis."
 * The Manual of Style frowns on extremely short sections and extremely short paragraphs. The two most common solutions are to expand or merge. The "Diagnosis" section, for example, is much too short and could be expanded. Examples of how other editors have handled the Diagnosis section (and other matters) in FA articles can be found at WP:FA.
 * Although this article seems well-sourced on average, some paragraphs have no sources. My rule of thumb is to include a source for every paragraph as well as every direct quote, every set of statistics, and every claim that might be reasonably challenged. The "Signs and Symptoms" section, for example, includes material that is not common knowledge, yet it is not supported by a reliable published source (RS). Your first-hand knowledge of the topic, although certainly useful in giving you insight, can't substitute for an RS. WP:RS has details.
 * The target audience should be the general reader rather than the specialist. The language in the "Pathology" and "Microbiology" sections is highly technical, and it might not be meaningful to a general reader. Insofar as possible, it would be helpful to recast this material in ordinary English. WP:MEDMOS has general suggestions about how this might be done.
 * Direct quotes are often fine as illustrations of certain points; however, they can be overused. The "Treatment" section in this article relies too heavily on long direct quotes. The quotes are from professionals speaking to professionals rather than a general audience; for Wikipedia's purposes, this is the wrong audience. Ditto for the long quotes in the lower sections.
 * The dabfinder tool at the top of this review page finds six wikilinks in the article that go to disambiguation pages instead of their intended target.
 * The link checker finds a dead url in one of the citations.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 03:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)