Wikipedia:Peer review/Scabies/archive1

Scabies

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 it is a pretty important subject and I don't know where to start improving it.

Thanks, Peter.C • talk 23:41, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jappalang

Dablink (tool in the box on the right of this peer review page) shows a disambiguation link; please fix it.

~~http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/story/2009/11/doomsday-thinking.html is a 404 page; the information is no longer there.~~

I check and it is still up. Might be your ISP or they might have had temp down time. Peter.C • talk 10:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed it is back up. Jappalang (talk) 02:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What makes http://www.whonamedit.com/doctor.cfm/708.html a reliable source or its author, Rudolf Kleinert, a trusted expert?

Several information in this article are not cited. This does not allow others to verify the statements made. The basics of Wikipedia's verifiability policy demands citations for statements that are likely to be challenged. In practice, this is usually most of the article's text and one would expect each paragraph to be cited to a reliable source.

The skimpy sections could indicate either:
- there is still information that was not included: look up more reliable sources to find what else can be written about that theme.
- there is insufficient information for that section: group the information with others to present a more substantial look.
- the information may not be relevant to the article: consider removing it from the article.

I found information repeated across the article. They should be grouped.

Even if images are perfectly "free", I think it is much more effective in being selective than to splash many of them across the article.

I believe that we should strive to have our articles accessible to the general readership, and avoid terminologies (medical or scientific) that can be quite foreign to readers.

"Scabies may be accurately diagnosed clinically in places where it is common when diffuse itching presents along with either lesions in two typical spots or a household member is also itchy."
Okay... I have a hard time understanding this sentence.

File:ScabiesD04.jpg, File:ScabiesD08.JPG, File:ScabiesD12.JPG, File:ScabiesHealed.JPG: no assertion of own work or such; i.e. no declaration that the uploader is the copyright owner (there are arguments that the license tag is not sufficient on its own to assert ownership).

Citations are inconsistent; use a template or make sure they follow the MOS and are consistent in format among each other.

The language really needs a copy-edit. I gave it one, but I am pretty sure someone else could do better.

There seems to be a few contradictions in the presented information.

Medical articles are held to much higher standards than others (because of the issues that might arise if faulty or nonsensical information are inserted and read by the public). Generally, peer-reviewed papers are the sources of choice for medical articles. Not having a medical background, I am unable to effectively judge the sources used here, but tertiary sources (encyclopaedias) and certain books and websites worry me. Have you contacted WP:MEDICINE for advice on this article?

The lede is supposed to be a summary of the article; everything in it should be in the main body text and sourced accordingly. So where did "[known] colloquially as the seven year itch" come from? Jappalang (talk) 01:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article requires serious work. I have made some changes in terms of structure and such, enacting what I said above about the sections. Feel free to revert if it introduces severe errors but take note of the tags I added to highlight what I said above. Jappalang (talk) 08:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]