Pneumonia edit
This is another article we worked on at the Medicine Collaboration of the Week. I would really like it to become featured, and would appreciate any advice regarding deficits in the article we can fix before nominating it there, such as the balance between lay and medical jargon, or important areas we're missing. Thanks! — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:18, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
- It looks like a good start, but there are a few issues. I expect that the bulleted lists will need to be converted into inline text. The "Other pneumonias" could do with at least a sentence on each of the types, as could potentially the "Complications" elements. The page needs more references and some interesting charts or other illustrations. Are there any statistics on reoccurrance of pneumonia? I've often heard that those who catch it once are more likely to develop pneumonia in the future, but I'm not sure if that is a folk tale. Thanks. — RJH 15:55, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- Note: One of the missing articles from the Wikipedia:Nuttall Encyclopedia topics is Pleura-Pneumonia, an inflammation of the lungs and pleura. You might consider adding that in, possibly on its own page. Thanks. — RJH 21:25, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- Thank you for taking the time to review the article and offer your suggestions. I have begun work on implementing your recommendations. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:47, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
- Note: One of the missing articles from the Wikipedia:Nuttall Encyclopedia topics is Pleura-Pneumonia, an inflammation of the lungs and pleura. You might consider adding that in, possibly on its own page. Thanks. — RJH 21:25, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- 1) Generally it just needs more research. What is there is good, but it needs some of the most important journal articles or review articles to be cited and a good ID and/or Pathophys, etc. textbook. Those should all be cited of course, and used to fill in the gaps. For ex, what are the standard American and European or other treatment guidelines? Citing The Acorn Newspaper is probably not what we are looking for. :) 2) A number of sections need expanding, and any one or two sentence paragraphs should either be expanded or merged. 3) The lead is pretty short. 2-3 full paragraphs that summarize the article well is ideal. 4) I'm wondering where the material in the prognosis and prevention sections come from since they cite sources that this article doesn't! Basically what happened with Asthma should happen here. - Taxman Talk 21:42, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for your thoughtful review again, Taxman. I haven't had a chance to sit down and put these changes through yet, but I will leave a message here when I do (hopefully it will be tomorrow). — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:23, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
The last five sections are each rather short; I wonder whether several of them can be conflated. Perhaps some could go in 'Therapy'. Tony 02:17, 19 September 2005 (UTC)