Wikipedia:Peer review/Rhabdomyolysis/archive1

Rhabdomyolysis

Article (Edit|History) • Article talk (Edit|History) • Watch article • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

This condition, which occurs in crush syndrome but also in many other medical situations and as a side-effect to treatment, was recently listed at the medical collaboration of the week. Several high-quality sources were identified, and WhatamIdoing (talk · contribs) and myself have expanded and sourced most of the content; this includes the diagnosis, causes, mechanism and treatment of the condition as well as its relevance in disasters and its historical context. I think it is now fairly complete, but would prefer some people's views before I submit it for WP:GA. Thanks. JFW | T@lk 15:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR _t 16:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  •  Done - most recommendations implemented with thanks. JFW | T@lk 20:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments from WhatamIdoing JFW, you know I think you've done an amazing job with this article. The main sources are excellent, the information is appropriately detailed while sticking to Wikipedia's summary style, and nothing obvious is missing. It's clearly a Good Article in its present state. If you're aiming for FAC, then here are a couple of minor nits you can pick:

• The opening paragraph contains a sentence that features a string of four consecutive prepositional phrases.
  •  Done - I think I fixed it anyway. JFW | T@lk 21:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
• IMO, there are basically only two reasons to read this article: either you're a professional, or you have a loved one in the ICU with this. Professionals at or above the hospital nurse level are well served by this article. The use of the simplest possible language in the introduction might be less intimidating for average (or below-average) readers. For example, perhaps we could say that myoglobin is "harmful to the kidneys" instead of "injurious to the kidneys." Similarly, we could add a very simple summary sentence at the beginning of each subsection: e.g., "Rhabdo is caused by the destruction of muscles" or "The main goal of treatment is to preserve kidney function."
  •  Done I have made some changes to de-awfulise this, but we shouldn't mince our words unnecessarily. JFW | T@lk 21:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
• Under Causes, perhaps the page would be prettier if the first few words in each bullet were italicized. The medications bullet isn't grammatically parallel; if you're determined to meet the Manual of Style preferences, then you might move meds to the bottom bullet and put the explanations into a paragraph immediately under it.
  • I'm not sure if that is helpful. JFW | T@lk 21:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
• The first paragraph of Pathophysiology may overlink. A professional isn't going to need a link to calcium, and a nonprofessional probably isn't going to click it. "Nephron," however, might benefit from a link.
  • Calcium was overlinked, but I don't think the other terms are really overlinked. JFW | T@lk 21:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
• Can we say anything else about the prognosis? The length of typical hospital stays, for example?
  • My sources are silent on this. JFW | T@lk 21:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Overall, I think it's in great shape, and you ought to submit it for a formal review already. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)