Wikipedia:Peer review/Timeline of tuberous sclerosis/archive1

Timeline of tuberous sclerosis

I'd like to develop this timeline to meet the featured list criteria, which include timelines. The only previous featured medical timeline is Timeline of peptic ulcer disease and Helicobacter pylori. I don't think there is enough material out there to build a History of tuberous sclerosis — it just doesn't feature in the popular press or books. There are no famous patients. The medical characters involved are mostly relatively obscure, with only a few big names. I'd like some feedback on the overall style and the writing style of each entry. The medical terms are I'm afraid somewhat long and obscure. I've tried to introduce them in context so you should get a rough idea of what XYZ is without having to know exactly what it is - but following the wikilink or reading the tuberous sclerosis article would fill in the details. I've added some comments on the talk page about the inclusion criteria. Thanks, Colin°^Talk 21:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestions:

"They have been awarded with eponyms such as "Bourneville's disease" and "Pringle's adenoma sebaceum". In comparison, much recent research involves large international teams." (reference?)
Interactive guideline? [1]

Anyway, this is a greatly referenced timeline article. Congatulations! NCurse _work 19:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your feedback. I've added two citations for the eponyms (from where else but Who Named It). That Interative Timeline you linked to is very attractive, though it concerns the patient's lifetime, rather than history. Cheers, Colin°^Talk 12:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fvasconcellos

Looks excellent at first glance. Well-referenced, good prose. A few suggestions:

Under "Nineteenth century":
- 1880: Marie died on 1979-05-07? :) Also, if bromide of camphor was used to suppress convulsions/as a sedative (as I presume it was?) then a plain link to bromide might be better than one to bromination, which is a redirect to halogenation.
- 1885: "…a case that was of a hard and fibrous nature." A case of?
Early twentieth century:
- May be just a silly factoid, but I'd like to see nationalities or whatnot for the authors described if possible; it helps give a bit of context, and an idea of where and how discoveries were progressing at the time—I find the mention that Sherlock was a barrister, for instance, to be quite interesting.
Mid twentieth century:
- Shouldn't it be "Mid-twentieth century"?
- The Lancet should be italicized, as perhaps should Guy's Hospital Reports back in "Nineteenth century". I could do this myself, of course, but I'm quite comfortable in the role of "reviewer" rather than "copyeditor" :)

I'd support this as a featured list. I guess, what with your experience at FLC, you'll know when to push for prime time. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for that. I've fixed the copyedit stuff. I agree about the nationality. I've tried to find extra details like occupation, location and forename. You've encouraged me to go over them again to see what else I can dig out. Might take a wee while. It is easier for those folk who are dead and have obituaries. Colin°^Talk 20:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, and thanks for the quick action. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia

I've never reviewed a featured list before, so I'm not up on what they're looking for. I noticed only some minor things:

Notice that cite web (see your References section) returns a language icon, while cite journal does not (see your Notes section). That's another one of the cite template inconsistencies that always makes me crazy. I prefer the look of (in French) and (in German), but to make them work with cite journal or cite news, you have to take the language parameter out of the cite template, and put the icon template inside the ref tags but after the cite template.
I wikified all of your full dates in references, not because it has to be done, but because it causes your dates to show consistent formatting according to the reader's preference. Another cite template inconsistency is that accessdate doesn't have to wikilinked (it automatically is), while the date parameter does have to be wikilinked.
Is it possible to wikilink hamartin and tuberin ?
There are four chapters to the story of tuberous sclerosis:[2] This breakdown confuses me, because I then expect to see a table of contents which conforms to these four chapters. Can you relate those chapters to the table of contents by century?
I wasn't clear on the 1932 entry: are stereotypies associated with TSC, or was that an error? (If so, can you adjust Stereotypy (psychiatry), which I've tried to clean up? :-)

Very nice — looks like you're on your way ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for tidying up the refs, and the review. Wrt the ref language field: I can't say I much prefer one form over another but agree it would be nice if they were consistent. Perhaps I'll post a request on the template page. It would be great if hamartin and tuberin had their own pages but I wouldn't be able to write more than a stub. I'll look into asking a wikiproject for help with that. I agree the chapter analogy breaks down a bit (chapters with fuzzy borders). I'll think about how to rephrase or section things. Wrt stereotypies: about half of children and adolescents with tuberous sclerosis (TSC) have autistic spectrum disorder (PMID 17268883), with perhaps a quarter classified as autistic (PMID 9813776). So I think the Stereotypy (psychiatry) article is OK when it mentions ASD and need not directly mention TSC. Cheers, Colin°^Talk 22:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 04:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]