Wikipedia:Peer review/Osteitis fibrosa cystica/archive2

Osteitis fibrosa cystica
This peer review discussion has been closed. I'm looking to re-attempt FAC, and am looking for further criticism/feedback so as to make the process as painless as possible. Any help would be immensely appreciated.
 * Previous peer review

Thanks! Strombollii (talk) 00:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC) Finetooth comments: The article seems clear, interesting, and professionally written to me, a non-scientist. I have a small number of suggestions.


 * The images lack alt text, which they will need for FA. It's a good idea to add them in any case. Alt text describes the essence of images, maps, and charts to readers who can't see them. WP:ALT explains how to write alt text and where to put it, and you can look at recent examples of alt text via WP:FAC.
 * The article has a relatively large number of extremely short sections. It might be worth considering merging, for example, the five subsections of "Diagnosis" under the single head, "Diagnosis" and eliminating the subheads. The FA article on Tourette Syndrome handles the "Diagnosis" section this way. Alternatively, perhaps some of the short sections could be expanded.
 * Part of the licensing information for Image:Friedrich Daniel von Recklinghausen.jpg could be a problem. The source url is circular in that it links to the image itself rather than to a page at the host site with information that a fact-checker could use to verify that Bibliothèque Interuniversitaire de Médecine is indeed the source. The fact-checker(s) at FAC are likely to ask for a more illuminating url.
 * The source url for Image:Illu thyroid parathyroid.jpg returns a "page not found" message. The url has probably moved within the site, and it would be good to track down the new url and to replace the old one.
 * I believe X-ray takes a big X even in the middle of a sentence. I see several "x-ray"s in the "Radiology" and "Fine needle aspiration" sections.

I hope these 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) 04:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)