Talk:Benign prostatic hyperplasia/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Delldot (talk · contribs) 05:08, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

An interesting and important topic and a valuable contribution to improve the article. I'm just starting this review but I think I'll put what I have so far and work in pieces. Here's what I have so far:

• Needs less technical language. Think of writing this for someone with no special medical vocabulary. Try to find synonyms for, or define inline, terms like hyperplasia, patent, lumen, hypertrophy, clinically significant, Supra-pubic, stasis, etc. There are a lot of sentences that should be rephrased in a less jargony way.

• In signs and symptoms I think the bulleted list should be converted into sentences and explained better. This will allow the info to be merged into the paras below and cut out redundancy. Explain what each of the items means. e.g. hesitancy, Intermittent stream, Overflow incontinence, etc. What is this chronic retention? I think it needs to be spelled out.

• Also, does the one citation at the end of the paragraph cover everything prior? If not, citations needed. I will go through and tag where they're needed.

Looking good so far! I will keep reading and add to this as I go. Looking forward to working with you! delldot ∇. 05:08, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Here is my next slew of comments.

• The lead should be a summary of the whole article, so sections like signs and symptoms, causes, diagnosis, and management should each get a sentence or two.

• The causes section is very technical and hard to follow. e.g. this language needs to be simplified: In both of these cell types, DHT binds to nuclear androgen receptors and signals the transcription of growth factors that are mitogenic to the epithelial and stromal cells.

• I might recommend a reorganization of the causes section to put the testosterone para before the castration one. Is there a reason it's organized this way?

• In the pathophys section, if there's going to be info like the median lobe is usually enlarged, it is necessary to first explain that there are lobes, how many and where.

• explain PUG and TZ.

• The diagnosis section repeats signs and symptoms from the s/s section and ads one or two not mentioned above. This should be merged into s/s.

• This sentence needs to be clarified and simplified: They reported statistically significant declines in prostate volume and nocturia using an interventional radiological technique that involves percutaneous venography and sclerotherapy of the internal spermatic vein network, including associated venous bypasses and retroperitoneal collaterals.

More to follow. Great work so far Jtamad, I'm excited to see how this improves! I hope this is not overwhelming. Take your time with this, I know it's a lot. If you think this is too much to take on during the course of a review like this, that's fine. We can take it down for now, work on it, and renominate when it's ready. Up to you. delldot ∇. 06:02, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do now. May take more than 7 days. If it's going to take too long, will think about denominating and trying again later. ~ juanTamad (talk) 06:23, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

That's totally fine, I have no problem with taking it down or leaving it up and letting you take your time with it. I think as long as progress is being made on it no one will object to it staying listed at GAN. On the other hand if it would be less stressful to take it down, cool. Thanks for putting in the work! delldot ∇. 14:41, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

@Jtamad: How's it going with the work? I haven't seen any progress lately, any objection to taking this down for now and improving it over time? delldot ∇. 21:37, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Let's take it down for now until there's energy to do a push. delldot ∇. 07:17, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm working on it. Busy with other things for now, so ETA 3 months. ~ juanTamad (talk) 02:23, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good, take your time. delldot ∇. 05:34, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Causes and pathophysiology vs risk factors in epidemiology

Seems to me that several paragraphs in causes may be more appropriate in pathophysiology (testosterone, estrogen, all the hormonal description), or maybe merge the sections (etiopathogenesis), and then epidemiology can include discussion or risk factors (factors that predispose or are protective in terms of relative risk from observational studies). I see that some featured articles have three separate sections. Will have to think it over. ~ juanTamad (talk) 05:51, 14 November 2015 (UTC)