Wikipedia:Peer review/Osteochondritis dissecans/archive1

Osteochondritis dissecans

 * 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 September 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 September 2008.


 * Articles should not be simultaneously listed at multiple content review processes (GAN and PR); please pick one and close the other correctly. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because while clearly not FA material, the article is quite thorough in its descriptions of the disease's signs & symptoms, causes, pathophysiology, treatment, etiology etc.. It seems at a good point to ask for review from the Wikipedia community at large as I prepare to nominate it for GA status.

Thanks, FoodPuma (talk) 14:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * A good effort, with extensive sources. I would suggest applying WP:MEDMOS for the section headers, and generally try to adopt a style that is more likely to be intelligible to the layperson. For instance, not everyone knows what "incidence" means, but they will understand "occurs in X per 100,000 every year". JFW | T@lk  05:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 09:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments (from a complete non-expert)
 * ✅ Form links to a dab page. Do you really need to link it at all?
 * ✅ Image caption in the infobox is a fragment so it doesn't need a full stop.
 * ✅ "as well as catching and locking " would it better to say "as well as the joint catching and locking..."? and "... restriction in its range .."?
 * ✅ "100,000 every year,[4] " - I would make this a full stop.
 * ✅ "with dogs - specifically the German Shepherd - being " - use en or em dash here instead of hyphen.
 * ✅ There's possibly a more accurate link for your Medial condyle of femur rather than just condyle.
 * ✅ No need to relink bone/cartilage in the pathophysiology section.
 * "of necrotic fragments, intertrabecular osteoid deposition" any chance of linking any of this?
 * ✅ "Functional Anatomy" and other headings - no need to overcapitalise unless you're talking about proper nouns.
 * ✅ "Dr. Smillie" who's he? What makes what he says relevant?
 * ✅ Under the Physical Examination section (which should be Physical examiniation), you can once again either delink the things you've linked once already or just link femoral condyle to the article I suggested above.
 * ✅ "Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is useful " - you've already abbreviated this once so just use MRI.
 * ✅ "open physes" what are they?
 * ✅ " 4--6" "four to six"
 * ✅ " 5 years" five years.
 * ✅ " autologous osteochondral plugs (OATS)" or "OATS procedure (osteochondral allograft transplant)." - confusing.
 * ✅ Check page ranges in the references - use en-dash and not hyphen e.g. refs 10 and 12 to 15.


 * Comments


 * ✅ What about CT in diagnosis? And MR and CT photos?
 * What are the chances of a good outcome with conservative treatment? How much do they improve with surgical management?  All it says is "prognosis is favorable"
 * What is the history of the disorder?
 * ✅ In the prognosis section you bring up the stages of the condition when this was not discussed earlier.

Cheers Doc James (talk) 01:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)