Wikipedia:Peer review/Mouth ulcer/archive1

Mouth ulcer

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…lately starting to consider thinking about beginning GA process on this article.

Thanks, lesion (talk) 14:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cryptic C62

Hi! I hope you do eventually bring this article through GAN. I am of the opinion that articles about common medical conditions are among the most valuable on Wikipedia. However, I think there is still a lot of work to be done:

More research! The quality of the sources used looks pretty solid, but 9 sources is not enough to build a medical article, especially for a topic as common and well-documented as this.
Why is there a section for Differential diagnosis and Diagnostic approach? I would imagine that there is a lot of overlap there.
There are some paragraphs in this article that are far too large to be readable. The most glaring example is the Pathophysiology section, which could easily be split into 2 or 3 smaller paragraphs.

If you find this feedback helpful, I would be happy to provide more. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:47, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for comments Cryptic, will take me a day or two to make these edits. When I have done this I will post here again...
I can download a few more textbooks or look for some more suitable PubMed articles to expand the reference list...

These 2 sections are as per WP:MEDMOS#Signs and symptoms. When you pointed this out I realized I am not 100% sure of how these sections differ from each other so I asked on WT:MED#Clarity...differential diagnosis and diagnostic approach sections, I am sure one of those clever people will explain it, and if needed the article can reflect this.

As per WT:MED#Clarity...differential diagnosis and diagnostic approach sections advice: "the possible causes (differential diagnosis) and how physicians will normally distinguish between them (diagnostic approach)" so it looks like the info in these sections follows the guidelines.lesion (talk) 14:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Done, but reading over this section I think it may need more work. Its a bit all over the place atm.lesion (talk) 01:05, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Some other areas of potential expansion:

Do any recreational drugs (tobacco, methamphetamines, etc.) cause mouth ulcers?

I will re-check these sources, I don't remember them mentioning recreational drugs, but you are probably correct for some.

Is surgery ever used to treat mouth ulcers? If not, why not?

An ulcerating tumor would require surgery and/or radiotherapy. I can add this to the malignancy section. Most other causes of ulceration there is no point in excising the lesions, since they will just reform in other areas of the mouth...

Epidemiology, big time. Do mouth ulcers vary in incidence or severity between age groups? Genders? Regions of the world? -- Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a single disease or condition as such, but a general term for a great many different processes. As such there does not seem to be any epidemiologic data for something that almost certainly affects everyone at many times during life. Recurrent aphthous stomatitis is a specific type of ulceration that has been the subject of epidemiological studies, however this has its own page. It might be better to delete the epidemiology section here altogether, unless a suitable source is found.lesion (talk) 22:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Osteoradionecrosis is the term for when area of bone does not heal from this damage." Two problems here: First, it appears that there is a missing word between "when" and "area". Perhaps "the" or "an"? Second, I don't understand how this is relevant to mouth ulcers. Does osteoradionecrosis cause ulceration? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:57, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I reworded this section slightly, it was confusing before... Lesion (talk) 11:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see some inconsistencies in the references that should be fixed:
- Ref 1 used "Inc." while Ref 2 uses "Incorporated"
- Ref 3 says "2nd ed. ed."
- Ref 3 says "Chicago: Quintessence Pub.Co.", shouldn't there be a space in "Pub. Co."?
- Ref 4 says "Scully, Crispian (2008). "14"." Why is that 14 in quotes? I don't know what it refers to.
- Some refs give initials as "AB", while others use "A.B."
- Some refs use semicolons to separate authors, but Ref 5 does not, making it very difficult to discern which names belong to which author.
- Ref 11 lists the pages as "pp. 7–8, 25, 35, 41, 43–44, 51–56." There are too many distinct pages used for this to exist as a single footnote. {{rp}} is very handy for this sort of thing.

A one paragraph lead is too short for an article of this size (or any size, really). Related, the lead should summarize important points from all of the top-level sections of the article. Once the body of the article is stable, both of these issues can be fixed easily by picking a few more nuggets from the body, inserting them into the lead, and breaking it up into paragraphs. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:20, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the issues with refs are now fixed...I normally dont pay any attention to what is being autofilled after enterring teh PMID. I will take more care from now on, these issues are hard to correct. Instead I think I will paste the authors direct from the pubmed listing into the "last=" field for standardization: Zbar AP, Ben-Horin S, Beer-Gabel M, Eliakim R. Yes could easily have some stuff about treatment in lead. I will think of other stuff to put in there too. Lesion (talk) 14:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]