Wikipedia:Peer review/Plantar fasciitis/archive1

Plantar fasciitis

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 think the article is approaching GA status but would like some feedback and fresh eyes on the article. Constructive ideas to better the article and source suggestions are always appreciated.

Thanks, TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:16, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Oldelpaso

This isn't a topic area I delve into when editing, but as a (mediocre amateur) runner it piqued my interest. I'm sure I read it at some point in marathon training during one of those "What is this pain? Is simple RICE enough or am I properly injured?" moments. I suppose the readership of the article is likely to be high in people attempting Google self-diagnosis, and that should be borne in mind. My first impression is that it stays the right side of providing general information and not medical advice, and the lead does a good job of avoiding too many technical terms for the lay reader.

Specific comments:

I don't know if there is a standard structure for medical articles that leads it to happen, but of the eight sections in the body, six are a single paragraph, and sometimes even a single sentence. Could some of them be merged elsewhere?

Done Some of them probably just need to be expanded. One paragraph can be acceptable for a section. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 23:18, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of very long sentences. In an article that inevitably needs to use lots of anatomical and/or technical terms, this harms readability. For example, the sentence "Diagnostic imaging studies are not usually needed to diagnosis plantar fasciitis, but in some cases a physician may decide imaging studies (such as X-rays, diagnostic ultrasound or MRI) are warranted to rule out serious causes of foot pain such as fractures, tumors, or systemic disease if plantar fasciitis pain fails to respond appropriately to conservative medical treatments." is 58 words. There's a slight tendency to overuse semicolons too. A guide I've found useful for chopping up unwieldy sentences is User:Tony1/How_to_improve_your_writing#Sentences.

Done-Didn't need Tony's guide. Broke them up on my own. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 23:18, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pathophysiology section: "Originally"... ..."recent studies" When did the change in thinking occur? When is "recent"? There will come a time when it won't be recent any more, so a specific date or date range would be useful.

Done-Clarified that these histological observations were made within the last decade. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 23:52, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Treatment: the linked text of "calf-strengthening exercises" leads to an unexpected target that has nothing to do with exercises.

Done-Agreed and fixed. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 23:18, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"its annual economic burden is estimated to be between 192 to 376 million dollars. Each year, pain from plantar fasciitis is responsible for 1–2 million physician office visits" Are these worldwide figures?

Done-I checked and these are statistics specific to the United States. So far I have not come across global statistics but will continue to search for them. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 23:45, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While difficult to create, a couple of animations or videos could be useful additions. For example, a reader wondering "what is dorsiflexion?" would benefit from an animation showing the movement in question.

Hope this helps. Oldelpaso (talk) 17:27, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It does, I don't need any help from Tony's guide to chop it down. I'll be able to do that myself but I needed a fresh set of eyes on the article. I'll see about merging some of the smaller sections and expanding the other ones. The semicolon thing is a bit of a matter of style, but if it's growing too repetitive, I can certainly address that. Regarding the pathophys section, unfortunately the literature is sometimes vague about when these shifts in thinking occurred. I'll recheck and see if I can pin down any specific dates. I'll check on the calf-strengthening link. I was unaware that it linked to something unusual. I think the figures are American for the economic burden and physician office visits, but I'm unsure. I'll recheck that as well. I have no idea how to create the animations or videos, but I agree that a video showing dorsiflexion would be an excellent addition. Perhaps another Wikipedia user more well versed in that area can assist. Thanks for the feedback! By the way, WP:MEDMOS is the set of guidelines used for structuring medical articles on Wikipedia. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:29, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]