Wikipedia:Peer review/Dislocation of hip/archive1

Dislocation of hip

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to make sure that my group and I are completing this correctly. We want to make sure that we have cited the sources correctly. We also want to make sure that the order of the sections are correctly labeled and formatted to fit the page.

Thanks, Rmb 0508 (talk) 04:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Thanks for your work on this article, which needs a fair amount of work to better conform with the WP:MOS. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

The current lead is only two sentences and needs to be expanded to conform to WP:LEAD. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. 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
For ideas on how to expand the lead, my rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. Another idea is to imagine someone could not read the article but could only read the lead - how would the lead do in concisely summarizing the article?
WP:LEAD says not to both bold and link terms in the first sentence.
Why is the article called "Dislocation of hip" and not "Hip dislocation"?
The section headers do not follow WP:HEAD - fix the capitalization
Also do not repeat the name of the article in the headers - so "Hip Dislocation Exercises used for Rehabilitation" could just be "Exercises used for Rehabilitation"
Language is not great in spots. One example There are many movements that are associated with the hip, making it an important necessity. [1] What is "it" here? The hip? The movements? I do not understand "Important necessity" - are all necessities already important? Is the hip really a necessity? (since there are amputees who live without a hip)(not easy) A copyedit would help
The article has a lot of short (one or two sentences) paragraphs (and some sections) which interupt the flow of the narrative. These should be combined with others or perhaps expanded wherever possible.
Also try to avoid bullet lists where possible, convert to text if at all possible.
Per WP:CITE references come directly AFTER punctuation without a space between the punctuation and the ref, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase
Article needs more references, for example the two sentences in the Posterior vs. anterior section need refs. This is also an example of a section that is too short and two paragraphs in that section that are too short. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
Duplicate refs can be combined - I did this for one as an example.
The article has about 10 disambiguation links that need to be fixed - see here
Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

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 _><>°^° 03:12, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]