Wikipedia:Peer review/Dwarfism/archive1

Dwarfism

 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for November 2008.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for November 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because this article is under the scope of WikiProject AP Biology 2008 and I want to find ways to flesh out the information contained and get the article slated for a WP:GA or even WP:FA nomination in the upcoming six months.

For instance:
 * Tips on the type of information that would be helpful in describing Dwarfism and its effects
 * Pointers in helping the article conform to the Manual_of_Style_(medicine-related_articles)
 * Help in describing dwarfism and its relation to culture throughout history, namely how culture would tie into an encyclopedic entry on Dwarfism
 * Organizing the content up to an encyclopedic standard
 * Any other advice on grammar, wording, or anything that could be helpful in getting Dwarfism up to FA status!

Thanks, Deusraijin (talk) 04:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, 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). Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Expand the lead per WP:LEAD - my rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but Cultural refs and Treatment / problems are not in the lead.
 * There are several short (one or two sentence) paragraphs which break up the flow of the article. These should be combined with others, or perhaps expanded.
 * There are also many bullet point lists which should be converted into prose text in almost all cases.
 * The whole literature section needs references. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
 * Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. cite web and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
 * IMDB is not generallly a relaible source
 * Per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation (no extra spaces), and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase
 * Per WP:HEAD, do not repeat the name of the article in headers - so "Problems associated with dwarfism" could just be "Associated problems". The same MOS section says to change "Film & Television" to "Film and television"
 * Problem sentence Nowadays, the LPA (Little Peoples of America) deems "little people" the most appropriate description.[2] Use a date (As of 2008...) not nowadays. The name is Little People of America and should linked. Focusing only on America could be seen as POV - see WP:NPOV
 * As the above sentence shows, this needs a copyedit.
 * See also should be at the top of a section
 * Per WP:MOS, images should be set to thumb width to allow reader preferences to take over. For portrait format images, "upright" can be used to make the image narrower.
 * A model article is useful for ideas on structure and examples to follow - there are many possible model FAs at Featured_articles