Wikipedia:Peer review/Hypothermia therapy for neonatal encephalopathy/archive1

Hypothermia therapy for neonatal encephalopathy
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because it aims to be of the quality of a definitive scientific review article and therefore should have peer-review. It has been posted for some time and been modified by a number of editors, and therefore this seems to me it is now ready for formal review.

Thanks, Deadwood Trail (talk) 10:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Question: You aim to make this a definitive scientific article and are seeking a peer-review. Are you looking for a peer-review from someone with expertise in this field (who can credibly comment on the validity of the content) or someone who can hold it up to WP's Manual of Style? H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 20:33, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this interesting article. Here are some suggestions for improvement.
 * A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - there are 64 Featured articles at Category:FA-Class medicine articles, several of which seem as if they would be good models.
 * The lead does not really follow WP:LEAD and needs to be expanded and to better conform to the Manual of Syyle (MOS).
 * The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. As such, 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
 * For ideas on how to expand the lead from its current one paragraph to two or even three paragraphs, my rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way
 * The first sentence does not really follow WP:BEGINNING which says in aprt The article should begin with a declarative sentence telling the nonspecialist reader what (or who) is the subject. If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence. The word encephalopathy does not even appear in the lead, though it is in the title.
 * The MOS says to provide both metric (SI) and English units, so 33 C should also be given in Fahrenheit. The convert template does a nice job of this.
 * Avoid words like recently as they can soon become out of date and different readers have different ideas as to what is recent or not. Use things like "as of YEAR" or "since YEAR" instead.
 * Could there be a lead image - perhaps a baby in an "incubator" or hypotermia unit (not sure what to call that)?
 * Headers need to follow WP:HEAD better - avoid repeating words in the title if possible. Avoid articles (the, a, an) and make the headers as telegraphic as possible
 * Article needs more refs - the whole first paragraph of Neural rescue has no refs, and the last paragraph of Experimental neonatal hypothermia also has none. The tone of the latter paragraph does not seem encyclopedic in tone to me
 * 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> if a paragraph has a ref and then one or more sentence after the ref (which do not have any refs themselves) then those need refs too.
 * Make sure to follow WP:NPOV - This was not quite the definitive result they hoped for, but the researchers remained resolute... is not neutral and reads like something from a press release or glowing profile.
 * 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.)

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; 03:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)