Wikipedia:Peer review/Musculoskeletal system/archive1

Musculoskeletal system

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for November 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am seeking advice from experienced wikipedia editors to advise me on formatting and information content. I would like information on bettering my article.

Thanks, Dondevoy01 (talk) 03:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Brianboulton

My comments are necessarily of a limited kind; someone else will have to check the article's accuracy, as I have no medical knowledge. However, I find this a good example of WP:summary style, and was pleasantly surprised by its general accessibility, something which doesn't apply to a number of medical/scientific articles.

• I have done the odd punctuation fix.
• The following are technical/medical terms which should be wikilnked: synapse; sarcolemma; synovial joint; paresis; ataxia; median nerve
• What does "innervated" mean?
• Are synovial joints the same as synarthroses? If so, I think this should be made clear.
• Two problem sentences in the "Diseases and disorders" section. Both are oddly constructed and need clarification. The second is long, and could be improved by splitting:-
  • Diseases of the musculoskeletal system mostly encompass functional disorders or motion discrepancies; the level of impairment depends specifically on the problem and its severity and articular (of or pertaining to the joints) disorders are the most common.
  • Although, primary muscular diseases, neurologic (related to the medical science that deals with the nervous system and disorders affecting it) deficits, toxins, endocrine abnormalities, metabolic disorders, infectious diseases, blood and vascular disorders, and nutritional imbalances are diagnosed as well.

And that's about it, for me. I hope that you find these suggestions helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 00:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments from JimmyButler

• In several locations their is implication that this combined system is specific to humans; yet there is additional notations referencing hydrostatic muscular - skeleton systems. I suggest deleting any references specific to "the human body" and be more general in your application.
• What is your bases for deciding what information to include in this enormously broad topic. Specifically in your references to diseases of these combined systems. Surely there are 100's of disorders - what is the bases for your selections.
• The challenge of such a topic is determining what is essential in understanding the article versus what is best farmed out to articles with a more narrow focus. Consider an article entitled "The Human Body". It is likely to be stub simply because the detailed articles are written on the specific components of the human body. Any attempt and full expansion of such a heading would easily become a book or an encyclopedia of its own. Although this topic is not as extreme of an example; I still sense that you are faced with similar concerns. You are heading toward an eclectic and random assortment of facts regarding both muscles and skeletons. Encyclopedia articles need to be more "focused" than that. --JimmyButler (talk) 02:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)