Wikipedia:Peer review/Ulnar collateral ligament of elbow joint/archive1

Ulnar collateral ligament of elbow joint edit

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to receive comments based on the following sections: classification, cause of damage, epidemiology, diagnosis, signs & symptoms, treatments, and ways to cite sources properly. Any grammatical, spelling, or punctuational errors comments are also welcomed. If there are any other comments/revisions that need to be made either for the good or the bad please comment. Much help is appreciated.

Thanks, Hipnotic88 (talk) 16:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This article is not yet ready for a complete peer review, "intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work, often as a way of preparing a featured article candidate." However, here are a few suggestions:

  • I like to use the "cite" family of citation templates to help me remember what is needed and where things go. You'll find them at WP:CIT, and you can copy-paste them into your sandbox to practice with. Don't mix them with other citation families such as "citation", which is also found at WP:CIT. You don't have to use templates (and I see that citations 1 and 2 are done correctly without templates), but just looking at the templates will tell you what information is needed and in what order it should appear. For citations to Internet sources, include author, title, publisher, date of publication, url, and date of most recent access if all those are known or can be found. You might look at Chagas disease, a featured article, in edit mode to see how these templates work in practice.
  • The lead should be an inviting summary of the whole article, not simply an introduction. A good rule of thumb is to include in the lead at least a mention of the main text sections and not to include important material that is not developed in the main text. WP:LEAD has details.
  • There is something strange about the way the "Classification" section begins. The first sentence says, "Ulnar collateral ligament, UCL, can be classified into two categories a slow deterioration of the ligament or an acute rupture." The ligament cannot be classified as two kinds of problems with itself. Since the article title indicates that the subject is a body part rather than a disorder, an organization along the lines of Hippocampus, a featured article, might be appropriate. In that article, sections called "Name", "Functions", "Anatomy", and "Physiology" precede "Pathology".
  • The "unreliable source" tags in the article need to be addressed. Beyond that, unusual claims, statistics, and direct quotations need an inline citation to a reliable source. Each paragraph, with the possible exception of the lead, also needs at least one inline citation. If one source covers an entire paragraph, place the citation directly after the terminal period of the last sentence.
  • The dab tool at the top of this review page finds two links that go to disambiguation pages instead of their intended targets.
  • Rather than running the disclaimer in the "See also" section, it would be best to bring the article up to date.

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) 03:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)TC)[reply]