Wikipedia:Peer review/Glomerulus (kidney)/archive1

Glomerulus (kidney)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to improve the readability of this article.

Other readers readers and editors (especially those not familiar with anatomy), what could be done to improve the readability of the article? Please feel free point out anything big or small that needs explaining or could be improved.

Thanks, Tom (LT) (talk) 12:24, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Tom thanks for taking the initiative to improve this article (a very important one). I think the main problem here is that the article reads in short chunks of text and disconnected sentences. Perhaps the "Structure" section could use some sort of text introducing what the main structural characteristics of the glomerulus are. Also, most sections need expansion. I'll see what I can add to the Histology section from books, and there should be lots of information about the structure of the filtration barrier in journal articles. A 'Clinical significance' section will have to be added at some point, glomerulopathy is an extensive subject relevant to many fields of medicine. I've already started to make some edits to the article, I'm sorry I can't collaborate very often lately but if you need a hand with something tell me ;) --Tilifa Ocaufa (talk) 03:11, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

OK I've done my best to fix up the 'structure' section and will get to the physiology section eventually.--Tom (LT) (talk) 09:19, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Also added the 'clinical significance' section and will expand it eventually. --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:19, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Csisc

First, I thank you for your work about glomerulus, the functional unit of the kidney... The work seems to be interesting particularly because it talked about the anatomy and the mechanism of this functional unit. However, it lacks from some important details.

• History: You had talked a bit about who discovered the glomerulus. However, you did not mention what were the theories about the work of the kidney before this and how they had been falsified then. You did not mention how Malpighi described his discovery for the first time. You have to expand this part and involve more effective references... You can use the papers citing Malpighi, important journals... I think that working on this part would be very fructuous for this important work.
• Permeability: You explained well the mechanism of work of the renal glomerulus. However, there are some hormones that influence characteristically this permeability. You should involve more information about this and you can use for that some books for Medical Students, some papers... Try to involve a list of substrates influencing the permeability of glomerulus. This will give more scientific depth to your work.
• Clinical significance: glomerulonephritis is not the main pathology that can influence glomerulus... There are some other pathologies that you can find within the version of this important work in the French Wikipedia. You can explain for example the reasons of having sugar in urea for diabetes... You can use for this many references. This will give to your work more trustworthiness and will give it more scientific depth. So, try to do this as soon as possible.
• Further information: Try to expand the first parts of your work about drainage because they are quite limited. Try to involve more information for this fact. You can use some books in French as they give more information about this important phenomenon. You can even use some books in German and Italian for this. Try to see the list of probable references that can help you by consulting the work about Glomerulus in other Wikipedias.

Yours Sincerely,

--Csisc (talk) 13:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Csisc, they're much appreciated. Unfortunately outside of greetings I can't speak French or German. However I do have access to a number of good sources that I can use. I'll firstly get the article's 'function' section up to scratch and then reply to you in a more comprehensive way. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:57, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

comments from Animalparty

In addition to the chunky sentences already mentioned, I think the placement and inclusion of images need rethinking, as well as their captions. The caption for File:Juxtaglomerular Apparatus and Glomerulus.jpg for instance, starts off with "The juxtaglomerular apparatus", a phrase which is not defined in the body, and the only time "juxtaglomerular" appears again is at the very end at Regulation of blood pressure. Per WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE WP:CAPTION, the images and captions should largely complement the text, not have new or tangential content within. The lead infobox image has a very wordy caption, that fails to even clearly specify where the glomerulus is: "The glomerulus is the network (tuft) of capillaries in red." Unless I'm mistaken there is a lot of red capillary network in that image that is not glomerulus. Similarly, the gallery of photos at the end should eventually be worked into an expanded body, such that they illustrate key paragraphs. Extraneous images should be omitted unless they can be placed into proper context (see also WP:GALLERY). Update: I think the lead image might actually be overly complex, and perhaps moved lower in the article, replaced with a less ambiguous image that immediately identifies the focal subject. See below --Animalparty-- (talk) 23:54, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

• 
  This image might be too complex for the lead
• 
  Simpler might be better (e.g. "Glomerulus (red) within Bowman's capsule")

Fixed up the captions and changed the images, will get around to the ones in the physiology section. --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:19, 27 April 2015 (UTC)