Wikipedia:Peer review/Rumination syndrome/archive2
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it has recently reached GA, and I hope to make it an FA and have it on the front page in hopes of making a few more people aware of the existence of this horrible condition. The main problem with the article is its adherence to the text of its citations (Which, though often similar, do not directly represent the citation in some places). This is a peer review to bring it up to FA quality.
Also, I am aware that it needs a classification section, and will do that (sometime...).
Thanks, ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 02:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: This is interesting (though I am glad there are not any photos of people throwing up in it), but I think it still needs some work before FAC. Here are some suggestions for improvement.
- WP:LEAD says of the first sentence of the lead: The article should begin with a short declarative sentence, answering two questions for the nonspecialist reader: "What (or who) is the subject?" and "Why is this subject notable?"[1] To me, the first sentence is a bit too technical and involved. I had to click the link to see what postprandial meant. I would try to rewrite the lead so it is a little more of an overview for the non-specialist.
- Since the lead is an overview, nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. However the alternate name Merycism is only in the lead (and two ref titles) and is never explained (assume it is from someone's name)
- Part of going to FAC is making sure beforehand that all the littlest details are taken care of. I note that it is postprandial in the lead sentence, but post-prandial in the infobox caption. Which is it? Pick one and be consistent (except for direct quotes).
- Or is bulimia capitalized or not? How about diseases / disorders in general (should it be Pica or pica)?
- I also note that at least some of the references do not include publisher (current refs 5 and 6 are published by the WHO, for example, but the refs do not say this). Please see WP:CITE
- The hardest FAC criteria for most articles to meet is a near professional level of English. This needs a copyedit to polish the prose - two examples I noticed:
- Hereditary here is not right - it is either "heredity" or perhaps "hereditary influence": There is little evidence concerning the impact of hereditary in rumination syndrome.[9]
- What is "in-ordinary behavior"??? Such behavior, though termed rumination, is not related to human rumination syndrome, but is in-ordinary behavior nonetheless. I would rewrite this and say something like Rumination involving involuntary regurgitation, similar to what is seen in humans, has been described in gorillas and other primates. An unrelated process in ruminants (such as cows, goats and giraffes) is also known as rumination, but is just describing how they chew a cud and is considered normal behavior.
- There are several short (one or two sentence) paragraphs and a few quite short sections that break up the flow of the article - could these be either combined with others or perhaps exapnded?
- Avoid words like currently or recently as they can become outdated quickly - see Recently, however, it has been diagnosed in increasing numbers of otherwise healthy adolescents and adults, though there is a lack of awareness of the condition by doctors, patients and the general public. COuld a year be added instead (since 1997 it has been diagnosed in increasing numbers) (guess on the year)
- Make sure the use of italics follows WP:ITALIC
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)