Musc2019

Musc2019, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Musc2019! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Nick Moyes (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:04, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review

I think your article has a good "lead in" section that didn't need much editing as it is concise and informative, so I like that you left it that way. It introduces what the article is about, and lets the reader know the importance of the topic with the second sentence. The second part of the lead-in addresses what I think would be most of the general public's biggest question when looking up colorectal polyps which is "is this cancer?".

I also think your pages "content" section shows a clear overview of the page and allows the reader to navigate easily to a specific section. The only section that doesn't see to flow as well as the other sections is the "structure" section. I think this section could possibly be discussed under the diagnosis section, since the structure of the polyp is often noted on imaging/procedures. This might provide an overall clearer picture for the reader as well. Within the “structure” section, I would suggest edits to the second sentence about the histologic appearance of the polyps. Breaking this part down into separate sentences may help the layperson better understand the three different histologic grades of polyps. I also think this would be a great place to add images of the different types of polyps. You could add gross images and/or histologic images to help the reader understand the different types of polyps. I like that the “Types” section uses bullet points to list the different types of polyps and then further discusses each type with a bold heading. That is logical and easy to follow. I also like how you added in sub-types under each of the 4 main types of polyps. This allows the reader to easily navigate to the type of polyp they are looking for information about, or allows them to see what types of polyps fall in each category.

I would suggest adding some hyperlinks to the FAP section of the article. Linking to things like hereditary cancer syndrome, APC gene, autosomal dominance may help expand the readers understanding of this section. Other than a few grammatical edits in the last sentence, this section looks pretty good.

The first sentence of the Lynch syndrome section just needs a bit of re-wording to make the sentence flow correctly. I would also suggest adding hyperlinks to this section to help the reader (HNPCC). I would edit the last two sentences about the Amsterdam Criteria to make sure the tenses of the sentences agree throughout each sentence. The overall content of this section is very good and is informative for the reader.

In the neoplastic polyp section, I would edit the fourth sentence into two separate sentences to help the reader follow along better. This sentence holds a lot of information as is, and separating it into separate sentences may make the information clearer. This section would also be a good place to add hyperlinks to lamina propria, muscularis mucosa, lymph node metastasis, etc. This could also be a good place to add some images to help the reader understand the histologic changes. This section also has some grammatical typos that can easily be fixed. I like that you listed the Haggitt’s criteria in way that is very clear and easy for the reader to follow. Making the “Adenomas” heading blue and the same size font as the sub-types of hyperplastic polyps will allow the reader to better understand that this sub-type belongs under “Neoplasms”. This will make the formatting consistent throughout the article and easier to follow along for the reader. The sentence that talks about percentages of the types of adenomatous polyps could use some grammatical editing to make the sentence flow more clearly. But overall, I think that information is very important and was a great addition to this section.

Overall, you did a great job improving this article. The sources you used are reputable medical textbooks that helped provide a great amount of missing information to this article. It seems you were thoughtful in the things you added to your article and you made an effort to add information existing sections that were previously lacking.

Atl201 (talk) 16:00, 8 December 2018 (UTC)