Wikipedia:Peer review/Familial aortic dissection/archive1

Familial aortic dissection
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because… This is my first wikipedia article contribution and I want to make sure it reads like an encyclopedia should. Thanks, LOTakara (talk) 23:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll do this one. --Noleander (talk) 23:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 23:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comments from Noleander
 * First sentence: "Familial aortic dissection is thought to be an autosomal dominant inherited disease that will result in dissection of the aorta, and dissecting aneurysm of the aorta, or rarely aortic or arterial dilation at a young age, yet the basic defect remains unknown." - need to break this into 2 or 3 sentences; perhaps use simpler terminology (laypeople will read the intro paragraphs:  the more technical discussion can be later, in the body of the article).
 * First sentence: the very first sentence (after you break it up) needs to plainly state what the disease is ... the cause (genetic) can be in 2nd or 3rd sentence.  Also, "... is though to be .." is dangerous:  what exactly is uncertain?  I suppose you are talking about genetic nature of the disease, but a reader might think that clause is applying to other facts in the sentence, such as "will result in ..". etc.
 * Diagrams? - The article would be much better if there were an illustration showing what this is about.  Even a schematic sketch, as a last resort.  If none is available, consider using InkScape (free drawing software) to draw one yourself and upload to WP.
 * "FAD is not to be confused ... "- All acronyms must be defined before used.  FAD is not defined.
 * External Links: this section should be below References.  Also: what is special about that one link? Why have it?  There are plenty of sources listed in the References section already.
 * "... is the best prognosis in most cases[7]." - The period goes before the footnote.  So it should be " is the best prognosis in most cases.[7]"
 * Section titles:  Do not make them boldface
 * Section depth: Sections shoud be two == or  three ===  deep. Four deep  ==== should only be used as a subsection under  a 3-deep ====.
 * More links: Add links to all terms that will not be clear to a layman; e.g.  MRI,  TEE, etc
 * InfoBox in upper right corner? - I notice that many articles on diseases have an InfoBox in the UR corner.  Although not mandatory, many readers may find them useful.  The infobox is Infobox disease - consider copy/pasting from another article to get started.
 * References: - It would be nice to have a list of 2 or 3 sources that summarize this topic; so a reader that is interested in more detail could go to another source and get more info.  The footnotes are great, but there are 19 of them, and it is hard to know which one is best, most authoritative.  Consider renaming the "References" section to "Footnotes" and then create a new section "References" that lists 2 or 3 best sources for readers to go to when they need more.  Maybe that was your intention for the "External links" section, if so, that is okay, but "External Links" often are for minor/incidental information ... "References" lets the reader know the items listed are more essential.
 * How common? - I don't see a mention of how common this is. Is there a statistic for, say, number of cases per year in the US?
 * Stub notice: - You can remove the "this article is a stub" notice at the bottom of the article.
 * Reword - "Normally associated with Marfan syndrome, Ehlers-Danlo syndrome, and various other genetic disorders which affect the connective tissues of the cardiovascular system, there are various mechanisms by which the medial layers of the lumen are stressed and eventually lead to dilation and tearing." - Consider breaking into 2 sentences: it is a bit long and convoluted now.
 * Prose quality - Overall, the prose is decent quality: straightforward, factual, and concise. It could flow a bit better, but it is not bad, and the other improvements (listed above) are more important that working on the prose.
 * Summary: it is a good start of an article. I suggest that you address the items above you agree with, then submit it to WP:GAN for Good Article recognition.