User talk:Medbean/Pineoblastoma

Peer Review

• Check for readability: Per readability calculator, 31.9 of 100 (17-18 year olds). Overall, I think you did a great job, as the article reads easily. Some more complex word choice can be changed, ie. "craniospinal dissemination" to "spread to the head and spine."
• Adherence to topic / Not getting off track: You did a good job of staying on track. But in the "Pathophysiology" section, I don't think you need to describe the normal pineal gland; instead, you can link to to the "Pineal gland" Wikipedia page.
• Organization & Flow: The article is organized in a logical progression; however, the actual formatting could be improved (for example, the subheadings can be changed to actual headings; similar to a typical Wikipedia page.)
• Use of images and figures: No images or figures were used. If you wanted to add pictures, I think a good place to add images would be either the pathophysiology portion (ie. histopathology slides) or the radiologic description portion.
• Proper use of citations: I didn't notice any issues with the citations.
• Paraphrasing: I didn't notice any plagiarism; everything appeared to be paraphrased. The author used their own voice throughout. Some paraphrasing is a bit ambiguous; (ie. "Initial treatment for pineoblastoma often includes a procedure to redirect accumulated cerebrospinal fluid secondary to obstructive hydrocephalus." You discuss a shunt in the next sentence, but word shunt should be included in this sentence, as the reader may not understand that this sentence is actually describing a shunt. To remove extraneous medical jargon, "secondary to" can also be reworded to "due to.")
• Quality Sources, i.e. resources open to the public: All the sources are from health organizations, open access, and recent within the past 10 years (the oldest source is from 2016).
• Check for bias and equal-sided arguments: I liked that you drew from different sources in your "Epidemiology" section to highlight the differing data presented in the different articles. A very minor issue, but I noticed that certain sentences can be worded more neutrally by removing transition word that demonstrate contrast, like "but" (ie. removing "but" in "Chemotherapy treatment can also be used, either before or after surgery, but its optimal use is still under investigation" to change the sentence to "Chemotherapy treatment can also be used, either before or after surgery; its optimal use is still under investigation.")

• Provide productive and professional critique: All in all, I think you did a great job with your article, you described everything succinctly and in the detail necessary to understand the topic--your additions are meaningful and valuable. Minor changes are suggested as above, and to summarize: try to parse down unnecessary medical jargon, word certain sentence more neutrally, add hyperlinks to link your page to other Wikipedia pages, and if you want to add images, good places would be the pathophysiology/diagnosis section.

JMWikiProject (talk) 07:13, 16 October 2022 (UTC)