Wikipedia:Peer review/Spinal stenosis/archive1

Spinal stenosis

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 would appreciate suggestions on how to improve the quality of this topic's content and make a more beneficial encyclopedic contribution.

Thanks, Dubyahill (talk) 22:10, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Biosthmors

Lead

In the lead, explain what the spinal canal is with a few words to make it understandable
Parasthesia does not need to be capitalized
Explain what is meant by a foramen
Wouldn't lumbar stenosis also compress the spinal cord? The article implies otherwise.

Lead & types

Clarify that lumbar and cervical are two common types in the lead. Currently the article contradicts itself by saying there are two types then later, there are more than two types.

Types

Could you clarify why degeneration causes a canal to narrow (instead of widen)?
"frequently surgical" seems vauge. Frequent where? How frequent? perhaps "can be surgical" and move to the Treatment section.

Epidemiology

Consider reworking this content into prose. See prose vs. lists. (Also consider this in other sections.)

Signs and symptoms

The sentence that starts with "Characterized by lower limb numbness" is not a complete sentence.

Causes

correct [{spondylolisthesis]]

Diagnosis

There is an unnecessary break between the words "physical examination"

Treatments

This section is inbetween a list and prose, it appears to be a list of incomplete sentences. I bet it would be better off as prose.

In general

Try reordering the article and possibly adding sections according to this guideline and try using more standard medical sources instead of medical websites
If using a citation twice you can name it and cite it as shown here: WP:REFNAME

Thanks for working on the article. I hope this helps. Biosthmors (talk) 17:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SandyGeorgia

Goodness, it needs boatloads of work. I did some work here and at lumbar spinal stenosis over a year ago; the problems persist.

We have an article on lumbar spinal stenosis, but none on cervical spinal stenosis (which redirects to this article on spinal stenosis in general). This general article should be just that, linking to the other more specific articles, which should contain the detail. This article should be only general, not specific to each kind of spinal stenosis.
All sources should be upgraded to secondary reviews, per WP:MEDRS.
For citation formatting consistent with most medical articles, you can plug a PMID into the Diberri template filler, which will generate a citation.
This dispatch explains how to find reliable medical sources (generally secondary reviews). You should be able to locate several recent reviews from the work I did at lumbar spinal stenosis, but that was in 2010: more recent reviews may be available, specifically in the treatment realm, and discussion of surgicial vs pharmaceutical management.
Sections should conform to WP:MEDMOS.
This article is excessively listy and lists should be converted to prose.

At any rate, I'm unsure what you want to do here, relative to the more specific articles distinguishing lumbar and cervical and whatever other types there are; I suggest it may be hard to work here without working on specific articles first. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:32, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]