Wikipedia:Peer review/Progeroid syndromes/archive1

Progeroid syndromes

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…this article had one major contributor (me) I have never written an article as big as this before, and so am bound to make many mistakes; so comments and constructive criticisms are welcomed. User:Iztwoz have already helped me with copyediting. I also want to try to get it to good article status. Specifically, please tell me how I can make the article more friendly towards readers not knowledgable in biology or the sciences. I have tried to explain things whenever possible and provided links, but any more suggestions are again welcomed.

Many thanks, Kinkreet^{~♥moshi moshi♥~} 02:57, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Casliber

Interesting topic

First off, try to meld the prose into paragraphs rather than alot of single sentences.

Hopefully there is some literature discussing them as a group. The article needs a section on incidence somewhere near the top.

Thank you for your comments, and I will work on it some more in a week's time. Kinkreet^{~♥moshi moshi♥~} 10:57, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Sasata

I think there's some major problems with the sourcing for this article. Please review the recommendations for sourcing medical articles at WP:MEDRS, in particular the part about using secondary sources (e.g. review articles), and about using up-to-date evidence (WP:MEDDATE). If I were reviewing for GAN/FAC, I'd wonder why the following recent (all from 2008–2013) review articles weren't used as sources: PMID 22411253, PMID 22383384, PMID 22265392, PMID 22103513, PMID 22103512, PMID 21739188, PMID 21680258, PMID 21671373, PMID 21400569, PMID 20651707, PMID 20298165, PMID 20044904, PMID 20024518, PMID 19675546, PMID 19387478, PMID 19181118, PMID 18762784, PMID 18201555. It would probably be a good idea to go through all the citations and try to replace any citations to primary studies, and studies more than a few years old; the article will likely have a rough time at GAN otherwise. Sasata (talk) 07:08, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your suggestion. I have largely based the parts I wrote on the most cited sources. I am not very familiar with sourcing in the Medicine Wikiproject, but will have a look. Thank you for your suggestions and I will incorporate them soon. (I may not have access to a computer for a week, so please don't think I am ignoring your comments, I will act on them as soon as I can) Kinkreet^{~♥moshi moshi♥~} 10:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]