Wikipedia:Peer review/Gastritis/archive1

Gastritis

 * 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 I need more knowledgeable people to review my page, and I'm not sure how to add photos to the article

Thanks, Llamoedu (talk) 23:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Quick comment for now

The is little, if any evidence that Epstein-Barr virus causes gastritis, (as opposed to gastric adenocarcinoma). I think this section should be deleted. Viruses, particularly Herpes simplex virus can cause gastritis by usually only in immunocompromised people. The most common cause of this disease if Helicobacter pylori, and this bacterium should be at the top of the list of infectious causes. Graham Colm Talk 19:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

In-line citations should generally be placed after the full stop (period). See "Cite". Axl ¤  [Talk]  12:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: Here are a few brief suggestions for improvement.


 * The first thing you might try in looking for possible illustrations is to try out some likely search terms in the Wikipedia search box in the left-hand column of your Wikipedia screen. I stuck "stomach ulcer" in there to see what would happen and came up with this awful-looking but possibly appropriate thing: Image:Deep gastric ulcer.png. If you look at the page, Peptic ulcer, where I found this, you can examine the infobox in edit mode to see how the image was inserted and what the template parameters look like. A lot can be learned quickly on Wikipedia by observation and imitation. You can also make use of explanations such as those found at WP:Images and related tutorials.


 * The citation notes should be inserted after the sentence punctuation rather than before. I fixed citation 1 as an example of the correct format.


 * When you plan to use an acronymn or abbreviation in place of a spelled-out name or term, it's standard practice to place the abbreviation in parentheses after the first full use of the term. I fixed Epstein-Barr (EBV) in the "Infection" subsection as an example. You should do this with GC, a few lines down. I have to assume it means Gastric Cancer, but why not GA for "gastric adenocarcinoma"?


 * The lead should be an abstract or summary of the whole article. Your existing lead doesn't mention diagnosis or treatment, and it should. My rule of thumb for writing a lead is to include at least a mention of the main idea of each main text section.


 * It's not clear in the "Infection" subsection what is meant by "prevalence". It would be good to explain or link to an explanation of prevalence and how it applies here. It would be possible to read the percentages in different ways if no explanation is given. It seems to suggest that 7.08 of the patients with gastric adenocarcinoma had detectible levels of EBV in their stomachs. But this doesn't fit well with the opening sentence that says, "The Epstein-Barr (EBV) virus plays a role in gastritis". If only 7.09 percent of patients with gastric adenocarcinoma have the virus in their stomachs, then "plays a role" is much too strong. Perhaps "may play a role", would be accurate.


 * More detail about the yeasts would be helpful. It's not clear whether Candida galbrata is a cause or an effect of gastric adenocarcinoma. Why does it matter that it's difficult to distinguish from Histoplasma capsulatum?


 * I would recommend looking through the whole article again for technical terms that most readers would not be familiar with, and I would either link or explain these. Examples are flagella, antibody, mucous, eicosanoid, biosynthesis, and prostaglandin, and I see others. On the other hand, you don't have to link common terms like "blood".


 * In the sentence in "Diagnosis" that reads, "He or she may do a endoscopy, where a flexible probe with a camera on the end is sent into one's stomach to check for stomach lining inflammation and mucous erosion", the phrase "one's stomach" personalizes the experience in a way advised against by the Manual of Style. Better would be "the stomach". I might re-cast the whole sentence in this way: "The physician might perform an endoscopy to examine the stomach lining for inflammation and mucous erosion". Or something like that.


 * Just as the Manual of Style recommends against using "one" as in "one's stomach", it recommends against addressing the reader directly as "you" (although it's OK here in my informal note to you). Thus in the second sentence of the "Treatment" section you should replace "your doctor may recommend" with something like "a physician may recommend".

I hope these brief suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 18:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)