Wikipedia:Peer review/Large cell lung carcinoma with rhabdoid phenotype/archive1

Large cell lung carcinoma with rhabdoid phenotype

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Ladies and Gentlemen:

I've listed this article for peer review because I have been through virtually every reference of substance I can find on the topic, and have attempted to condense it and present the accumulated knowledge as best I can.

No doubt there are still some problems with it, but in truth, I believe it is just about finished up to the very limit of my own capabilities, and it needs attention from someone who is truly an expert on the subject (lung cancer pathology).

I am, or course, still willing to work hard on it, but would be greatly appreciative of detailed comments on what I can do to improve it. A fresh pair (or several pairs) of eyes, I guess.

With my thanks in advance, and my very best regards: Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 02:25, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting and generally well done article on an important topic. I have also looked at the article Combined small cell lung carcinoma and notice some of the same issues here - I hope that it is OK that I have re-used some of that review here. You write well - here are some suggestions for improvement.

• It is important to provide context to the reader and also to avoid or explain jargon wherever possible. This is done nicely in the article in several places, for example Approximately 98% of lung cancers are carcinoma, which are tumors composed of cells with epithelial characteristics.[7] but other places like ...wherein at least 10% of the cells contain distinctive eosinophilic whorled perinuclear inclusions composed of intermediate filaments,[1][2] ... are a bit difficult for the lay reader to follow
• Wikilinks help here too - eosinophilic and even though perinuclear inclusion is a red link, perinuclear could be linked to Perinuclear space like this [[Perinuclear space|perinuclear]], so the reader would just see perinuclear (apologies if you already knew the WP:pipe trick)
• Any chance for a free image? See WP:IMAGE#Finding_images_on_the_Internet. Anything produced by an agency of the federal government (NIH, etc.) would be free, or it might be if you contacted someone who has published nice images that they would release them under a free license.
• The current lead is too short and needs to be expanded so it is an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. 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. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way - please see WP:LEAD
• I would also say that the lead can be written at a more general level as an overview for the non-specialist.
• Look for places to add wikilinks - for example the eight major taxa of lung carcinomas - the first one at least Squamous cell carcinoma has an article and I am guessing all of them do.
• Per the Manual of style (MOS) numbers under ten are generally spelled out (so "eight major taxa", not "8 major taxa" and third, not 3rd).
• Also per the MOS articles usually use "percent" instead of %
• The article is a bit listy in places. Lists usually interrupt the flow of the prose and if possible they should be converted to regular prose (the microscopic characteristics list especially).
• Per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase - so fix things like Microscopic characteristics of rhabdoid cells include[2][12][13]:
• The refs are done fairly inconsistently. Titles of journals are italicized in some cases, and not in others, or the initials of authors seem to need periods following them (Doe, J.; Smith, R.) {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful here.
• I also wonder that none of the references are available online - if they are (PubMed?) then please provide links.

Hope this helps and thanks for your work on this important topic too. 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 _><>°^° 13:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)