Wikipedia:Peer review/Cancer/archive2

Cancer

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is most likely to become the med collaboration of the month in January and I think it would be a good idea for a reviewer to find out what is wrong with the article before we work on it. This way we can save some time down the road.

Thanks, Peter.C • talk 01:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from RJHall—Here's a few thoughts I had:

To me, the Pathophysiology section should go first, followed by Classification. That will set a baseline understanding of the disease. Causes and Prevention should be next to each other.
In the Classification section, what is meant by "the type of cell that resembles the tumor"? This could be made clearer.
Germ cell tumor paragraph, "In adults most often found" is awkward English. The same form is used throughout the paragraph.
The Classification, Diagnosis, Prognosis, Signs and Symptoms, and substantial parts of the Management and History sections lack citations.
In the Causes section, the meaning of the percentage ranges is unclear. Is this variation in cause vs. type?
"Cancer related to ones occupation..." How is this connected to chemicals?
In the "Ionizing radiation" section, you might also mention the effect of nuclear weapons testing, nuclear reactors, nuclear materials handling, and the atomic bomb drops on Japan.
The Diet section seems to be a mixture of Causes and Prevention, whereas it is filed under Prevention.

—RJH (talk)

Finetooth comments: I'll limit my comments to matters related to the Manual of Style. Just at a glance, I see several things that will need attention as you develop the article.

Large blocks of text need inline citations to reliable sources. For example the "Classification", "Signs and symptoms", and "Heredity" sections are completely without sources, as are the third and fourth paragraphs of the "Infection" section. Those are merely examples, not a complete list. A good rule of thumb is to provide at least one source for every paragraph as well as every unusual claim, every set of statistics, every direct quotation. If an entire paragraph is supported by a single source, the citation should appear at the very end of the paragraph. In other paragraphs such as the first paragraph of the "History" section, an inline citation or citations supporting the claims in the first part of the paragraph don't cover the remaining claims, which may also need support to satisfy WP:V.

WP:MOSBOLD favors extremely limited use of bolding. The existing article often uses bolding for emphasis, but italics should be used instead. For example, nothing in the "Classification" section should appear in bold except the section head, which is bolded automatically. The same is true of the "Glossary" section.

WP:MOS#Bulleted and numbered lists suggests turning lists into straight prose paragraphs when feasible. The glossary is probably best as a list, but at least some of the others are doubtful. I think the article is too list-y as it stands.

Quite a few of the references are malformed or incomplete. Refs 9, 69, 70, and 71 are examples.

The "Reference" entries should be in alphabetical order. The formatting of the entries should be consistent. Book entries should include, at a minimum, the author, title, date of publication, publisher, place of publication, and ISBN.

Images should not overlap sections, and they should not displace section heads or edit buttons. MOS:IMAGES has details. File:Symptoms of cancer metastasis.svg, for example, overlaps two sections and displaces an edit button. So does File:Thorax pa peripheres Bronchialcarcinom li OF markiert.jpg.

File:Clara Jacobi-Tumor.jpg looks out of the page and would be better positioned on the left, looking in.

Disagreements may arise about whether or not the article is too US- and Europe-centric. I'm not saying it is, just mentioning this as something to think about as you go along. I would consider adding some examples or statistics from other parts of the Earth where feasible.

The featured articles listed at WP:FA#Health and medicine may provide useful models to imitate.

WP:MEDMOS has many useful tips about medical articles.

The tools at the top of this review page find four dead links in the references and three links in the text that go to disambiguation pages rather than the intended targets.

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) 00:10, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]