Wikipedia:Peer review/Toxic encephalopathy/archive1

Toxic encephalopathy

 * 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 April 2009.
 * 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 April 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I think this is a important topic in the field of neuroscience/medicine. I don't know if it covers the topic in detail enough. Is it broad enough in its coverage? How can it be improved to gain B-class or GA status? Thanks, Edward130603 (talk) 20:25, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting start, here are some suggestions for expansion and improvement. 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). Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 20:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The lead is just one sentence currently. It should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article - my rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. The lead here should probably be two paragraphs, more if more material is added. Please see WP:LEAD
 * I will work on the lead soon.--Edward130603 (talk) 21:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure if the expanded lead is enough now, although it is more of a summary.--Edward130603 (talk) 20:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I am concerned about the images - they need to have links to the specific webpages where they were found. It may well be that they are free images as works of the US Government, but the source URLs are required.
 * done--Edward130603 (talk) 21:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * From looking at the second figure it is clear that this is a disease of long term exposure - decades elapsed between the intial exposures and the symptoms. While it says in one place Toxic encephalopathy is caused by extended exposure to toxic chemicals... it later says things like The substances diffuse into the brain rapidly. When they are not detoxified immediately, the symptoms of toxic encephalopathy begin to emerge. which makes it sound like it is near instaneous. This needs to be clarified.
 * done--Edward130603 (talk) 21:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The second figure also seems to indicate lead (Pb) is a cause - I did not see this in the text anywhere.
 * done--Edward130603 (talk) 21:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Language needs to be cleaned up / polished in places Due to the fact that some of these chemicals were once used with railroads as solvents, those who worked in the railroad industry were particularly exposed.[5] how about "at risk" instead of "exposed"? Or here why not combine these sentences Toxic encephalopathy has a wide variety of symptoms.[3] Symptoms can include memory loss, small personality changes,... so you get Toxic encephalopathy has a wide variety of symptoms, which can include memory loss, small personality changes, ...
 * done--Edward130603 (talk) 21:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * A few places need refs, such as Toxic encephalopathy is caused by extended exposure to toxic chemicals, including 1,1,1-trichloroethane, trichloroethylene and perchloroethylene. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
 * done--Edward130603 (talk) 21:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. cite web and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
 * Not sure what you mean by this one. All internet sources have URL, title and date accessed. Those that have a known author and publisher are there. cite web is used in every reference.--Edward130603 (talk) 21:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The refs which are cited are an odd mix - I would use the most rigorous reliable peer-reviewed medical sources possible, but "Massage Today" hardly seems to meet WP:RS
 * Massage Today seems like a health magazine. However the author, John Upledger, DO, OMM, is a medical director. I think he is credible enough.--Edward130603 (talk) 21:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * A model article is useful as a source of ideas and examples to follow. WikiProject Neuroscience has 14 FAs listed that could be useful models for expansion and there are many more at WikiProject_Medicine - perhaps Schizophrenia would be a good model (brain disorder)?
 * Thanks for your comments, Ruhrfisch. They were a great help. --Edward130603 (talk) 21:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but I do not see where the images are free to use here. The journal is published by an arm of NIH, but the actual authors of the article are from Harvard, and are not NIH (federal govt) employees. The journal is available free (at no cost) online, but I do not see any notice that its contents are free (without copyright restrictions). See the article link. I will ask at the Wikiproject Neuroscience page - I am not an expert on the journal by any means and I may be wrong or may have missed some notice, but short of a notice I missed that these are workd of federal employees, I do not see where the images are free. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 14:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I missed the copyright notice before but the Wikiproject Neuroscience talk page set me straight - see [copyright info. They are free in all senses, [[User:Ruhrfisch|Ruhrfisch]] &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 01:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)