Wikipedia:Peer review/Immunomics/archive1

Immunomics

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is a brand new article for Wikipedia and I know I have only captured a few insights about the field of immunomics. Specifically, I'm hoping the peer review will provide two things: 1) Check for accuracy of the provided topics 2) Contributions of new material

Thanks, Mfrick1 (talk) 21:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Quick comment - someone will review this in a few days at most, but be aware that peer reviewers are not generally content experts in any given field they review (be it immunomics or the works of Selena the tejano superstar). Reviews tend to focus on prose, references or lack thereof, and Manual of Style issues. Organization and flow are also things I look at. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Agree with Ruhrfisch. Your top post indicates that you want a subject matter expert to validate the technical accuracy of the material (and perhaps add some more). Most editors that perform peer reviews are adept at style and quality issues, but not validating the content itself. Maybe you'd be better off posting a query at a project talk page like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biology ... that is where subject matter experts are more likely to be found. --Noleander (talk) 14:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment - I do not have the qualifications to review this article, but I have some concerns about the reference style as of this version. References 8-12 have the links before the text instead of after it, reference 14's date "(2006)" is in a different position in the text, and references 17 and 18 are just titled links. – Allen4names 05:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: This is an interesting article - thanks for your work on it. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

• A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are several FAs at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Health_and_medicine that may be useful models.
• The lead does not really follow WP:LEAD. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. As such, nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself, but analyzing the systematic variation of gene expression can relate these patterns with specific diseases and gene networks important for immune functions seems to only be in the lead.
• My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, but many of the sections and subsections are not in the current lead. For example, Lymphochip, ELISPOT, and activation are not in the lead as it now stands.
• If possible, having an image in the lead is strongly encouraged by the WP:MOS
• WP:HEAD says not to repeat the title of the article in headers or subheaders if at all possible. So "Foundational Studies in Immunomics" could just be "Foundational studies", or "Technologies Used for Immunomic Research" could just be "Technologies used" or even just "Technologies" - please also note capitalization needs to follow WP:HEAD
• Biggest problem I see with the article is a lack of references. For example the first paragraph in Foundational Studies in Immunomics has no refs, but has a direct quotation.
• My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
• Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
• The article has a lot of short (one or two sentence) paragraphs and sections and so has pretty choppy flow. Wherever possible these should be combined with others or perhaps expanded.
• I would also avoid bullet point lists wherever possible, such as the Mapping tools available and Immunomic Databases sections.
• I think it would help to have more background at the start to explain some of the basics of the immune system.
• Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:45, 18 December 2011 (UTC)