| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…
I need all sections especially the epidemiology to be reviewed because I want to know that this will be beneficial to the public in gaining and understanding the topic of drop foot. Bavill (talk) 00:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Bavill (talk) 00:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Comment: Your objective is praiseworthy. However, the article is not yet in a sufficiently prepared state to warrant a full-scale peer review - articles with major cleanup banners are specifically excluded by WP:PR, which stipulates that PR is "intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work". At present the article contains bare links to a few online sources; it needs to be properly referenced per the requirements of Wikipedia:Citing sources, with attention to the section "How to format and place citations". Sources should be high-quality - the best available - and I doubt that Sweed-O would qualify. There are also prose issues, in particular the tendency to write material in very short paragraphs. I note that you have not contributed much to the article thus far; maybe your first step should be to contact other editors who are knowledgeable in the area and work with them on improving the article before bringing it back here. Brianboulton (talk) 20:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Please note also:
- The tool on the right indicates two links to disambiguation pages.
- One of your external links (in the "Features" section) is dead.
- The link marked "Drop Foot Explanation" goes to a completely unrelated page.