Wikipedia:Peer review/Endometrial cancer/archive1

Endometrial cancer
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've been working on this one for awhile and am looking for a mid-development/pre-GAN review. Any thoughts would be welcome. Thanks, Keilana&#124;Parlez ici 01:11, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Well done for tackling this topic, . Some general advice and pointers. JFW &#124; T@lk  20:40, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I would expand all technical terms (e.g. pyometra) on first use. (The pyometra article is mostly about veterinary medicine, by the way!)
 * I would move lifetime risk from "Risk factors" to "Epidemiology".
 * The "Pathophysiology" section is exclusively about molecular biology but doesn't say a lot about how this leads to proliferation, invasion, metastasis. For the lay leader this may be confusing. I am not sure how much there is to say about the tumour microenvironment, but it might need covering.
 * , I think.
 * The term "evaluate" is rarely used in British English and perhaps an Atlantically neutral term might work better.
 * Would the "classification" section be more effective if it was presented in the form of a table?
 * I'm not sure what you mean by that, but I did write a brief intro paragraph explaining the difference in tumors. What kind of table were you thinking? Keilana&#124;Parlez ici 19:30, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The same applies to the FIGO staging.
 * In the "surgery" section, the reason for performing mastectomy in type II cancers is not explained. Presumably this is prophylactic?
 * Yes it is.
 * In "add on therapy", which tumor marker is associated with endometrial cancer? Is this a reference to Ca125?
 * Yes it is but that information got shuffled elsewhere and makes much more sense now.
 * I would integrate "Complications of treatment" with discussions about the respective treatments.
 * "Treatment of recurrences" is technically palliation rather than cure, and perhaps this should be emphasised.
 * Some of the references are not secondary sources (e.g. much of the "Quality of life" subsection).
 * I think I got them all.
 * I would integrate "Complications of treatment" with discussions about the respective treatments.
 * "Treatment of recurrences" is technically palliation rather than cure, and perhaps this should be emphasised.
 * Some of the references are not secondary sources (e.g. much of the "Quality of life" subsection).
 * I think I got them all.
 * Some of the references are not secondary sources (e.g. much of the "Quality of life" subsection).
 * I think I got them all.

Thank you so very much for this review! It was incredibly helpful. Keilana&#124;Parlez ici 19:30, 10 August 2014 (UTC)