Wikipedia:Peer review/Crohn's disease/archive1

Crohn's disease
Past week's medicine collaboration. Comments/suggestions on getting it up to featured article standards? --WS 18:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 20:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

This is generally pretty good. The lead is a bit long at 5 paragraphs (per WP:LEAD) - perhaps some of the more specific details could be left until later on, and a couple of the paragraphs combined. The first 3 sections are okay, some of the pictures could be on the left to give the article a nicer shape. I would've thought the order of sections should be gone Symptoms, Diagnosis, Treatment (sort of chronlogical), but if there's a standard for articles of this type then ignore that. Again, I might be wrong, but Pathology sounds like it should be a subsection of Diagnosis. The end of the article needs work, Prognosis and History are very short sections with only short paragraphs within them. (Could the prognosis paragraph come at the end of Treatment section?) The tag obviously needs citing or removing, and the issues raised on the templates need to be dealt with. It seems well-cited throughout. If the end of the article could come up to the standard of the start, I think this could be featured. Trebor 20:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Automated suggestions
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question. You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, AZ t 20:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.
 * The lead is for summarizing the rest of the article, and should not introduce new topics not discussed in the rest of the article, as per WP:LEAD. Please ensure that the lead adequately summarizes the article.
 * Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
 * Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space -  between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18&amp;nbsp;mm.
 * Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:BTW, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006, but do not link January 2006.
 * Please alphabetize the.
 * Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per WP:SS.
 * article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.
 * There are a few sections that are too short and that should be either expanded or merged.
 * There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
 * Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: color (A) (British: colour), colour (B) (American: color), behaviour (B) (American: behavior), center (A) (British: centre), ization (A) (British: isation), anemia (A) (British: anaemia), diarrhea (A) (British: diarrhoea), esophagus (A) (British: oesophagus), aging (A) (British: ageing), check (A) (British: cheque).
 * Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
 * While additive terms like “also”, “in addition”, “additionally”, “moreover”, and “furthermore” may sometimes be useful, overusing them when they aren't necessary can instead detract from the brilliancy of the article. This article has 31 additive terms, a bit too much.
 * Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.


 * Some of the above have been dealt with and have been struck through. --apers0n 11:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)