Wikipedia:Peer review/Deep vein thrombosis/archive1

Deep vein thrombosis
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I've worked the most on four sections (Classification, Causes, Pathophysiology, and Prevention), and I would like feedback on these sections.

Thanks, Biosthmors (talk) 18:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've also now rewritten the Treatment section, so that can be included in this peer review. I am looking to meet GA standards now, but FA standards evenutally. I plan to rewrite the Diagnosis section too, much in the same way as the Prevention and Treatment sections are written, but if someone has any concerns I'd like to hear them. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 18:21, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment – Well a quick glance through suggests there are some layout issues. In particular, too many one-line paragraphs and too many one paragraph sections. You might want to take a look through WP:LAYOUT and either expand on the small paragraphs or combine them with neighbors where possible. A couple of the citations have name lists that are inconsistent with the others. (See "Elizabeth D Agabegi" and "Edwin J. R. van Beek".) The "Signs and symptoms" section looks like it needs more citations; probably at least one per paragraph. Finally, a few more informative pictures would be, well, illustrative. Thanks. Regards, RJH (talk) 21:44, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this, and sorry it has taken me so long to review. Here are some suggestions for improvement. Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:15, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * First off, it is difficult to review only sections of an article, and I note that readers who come to this will read the whole article as well. So I will review the whole article and then make comments on the psecific sections requested.
 * A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are many FAs at Featured_articles which seem as if they might be useful models.
 * There is one redirect here
 * Avoid WP:OVERLINKing - common words like pain or walking probably do not need a link - the reader should know what they are
 * Does the use of itialics for venous thromboembolism follow WP:ITALIC?
 * The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself, but DVT is a medical emergency, so all limb swellings, however trivial, should be regarded as a DVT until proven otherwise. seems to only be in the lead.
 * My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but I am not sure that is the case here - is pathophysiology really in the lead (the word is not)
 * Some of the sections need references. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. See WP:CITE and WP:V
 * Watch out for things that break up the narrative flow of the article, like lists (which usually could be better as straight prose) and short (one or two sentence) paragraphs and sections.
 * For example I think explanatory text would help make the risk factors lists clearer
 * Or could really short sections like Thombolysis and Thromebectomy be combined? Or the really short paragraphs in Epidemiology?
 * I would move History much earlier in the article and expand it so that is more than just the very initial development / definition of the condition. An FA criterion is comprehensiveness, and the history is not comprehensive.
 * The large blocks of direct quotes in Medical inpatients might be an issue under WP:NFCC
 * Avoid vague time terms like current - better to use things like "As of 2012" as current can become outdated.
 * Images look good but agree there could be more
 * References seem to be to reliable sources and are formatted properly as far as a few spot checks showed.
 * Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)
 * I think I've adequately addressed the concerns (except I think even more prose on the risk factors is needed). Thank you for raising them. I've noticed most history sections in medical FAs seem to be at the bottom, as with subarachnoid hemorrhage, schizophrenia, and coeliac disease. Biosthmors (talk) 05:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC)