Wikipedia:Peer review/Winged scapula/archive1

Winged scapula
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because…

Thanks, Jaimeem (talk) 23:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: You haven't said why you want a review, but I'll give it a try. My main concern is that the article relies too heavily on a few sources and, at least in places, imitates them too closely.


 * The one sentence that is sourced in the lead says, "Scapular winging has been observed to disrupt scapulohumeral rhythm, contributing to decreased flexion and abduction of the upper extremity, as well as a loss in power and the source of considerable pain." The source supports the claim. The problem is that the supporting sentence in the source says, "Disrupting scapulohumeral rhythm, scapular winging contributes to loss of power and limited flexion and abduction of the upper extremity and can be a source of considerable pain." Changing a few words in the original isn't good enough to avoid plagiarism. Please see WP:PARAPHRASE for a full explanation.


 * The first parts of the article (lead, causes, epidemiology) are too dependent on a single source. If you read multiple sources and absorb the information, you will be less likely to parrot any particular source.


 * Wikipedia articles do not use "one" as a pronoun, although sources sometimes do. The article says, "In some serious cases, the ability to perform activities of daily living such as changing one’s clothes and washing one’s hair may be hindered." The source says, "Scapular winging is a rare, but potentially debilitating condition that can affect the ability to lift, pull, and push heavy objects, as well as to perform daily activities of living, such as brushing one’s hair and teeth and carrying grocery bags." Wikipedia might say, "Scapular winging may interfere with dressing, grooming, lifting, and other daily activities."


 * Similarly, the "Epidemiology" section too closely imitates the source. The article's list has the same content and form as the original.


 * Writing about a highly technical medical topic is difficult. Part of the difficulty lies in using language that is accurate yet understandable by an audience of ordinary people. Links can help, but linking "scapulohumeral rhythm" to rotator cuff, for example, may not be enough. What does "scapulohumeral rhythm" mean in plain English?


 * Five of the six citations in the "Reference" section are incomplete. You may find it helpful to look at other health-related articles to see various methods of handling citations. The one complete citation in the article uses the "cite journal" template; you can find the other members of the "cite" family of templates at WP:CIT.


 * WP:FA has a list of featured articles that you might find interesting. They can serve as useful models.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 03:06, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Formatting citations would be a good and easy idea to improve the article. If you find an article, such as those you use, in pubmed you can use the pmid number and paste it here to obtain a nicely formatted citation. Searching in pubmed for more sources on the issue as proposed above would also be a good idea.--Garrondo (talk) 16:07, 24 November 2010 (UTC)