Wikipedia:Peer review/Lyme disease/archive2

Lyme disease

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…

I am uncertain what this article needs to go from B grade to GA grade. Please advise.

Thanks, GT67 (talk) 20:05, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think right now the largest opportunity for improvement will be replacing primary sources with updated secondary sources (like review articles per WP:MEDDATE). Consider the sentence "In northern Africa, B. burgdorferi sensu lato has been identified in Morocco, Algeria, Egypt and Tunisia.^{[144][145][146]}", for example. It cites sources from 2000, 2004, and 2006. But what if the most current sources consider one of these reports not worth citing? That's the main thing I see right now, in line with what Sasata said at User talk:Sasata. The article was written more as a review article, and it might have been top-quality when it was last polished up, but it requres more effort to keep a review article up to date than it does an encyclopedia article. Feel free to use this peer review page to post any questions about content GT67, thanks! I'll also go through and provide more feedback. Biosthmors (talk) 20:41, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Biosthmors

Linking tick-borne disease seems to make more sense than linking the phrase emerging infectious disease, which seems to be more of an epidemiological phrase than a basic definition calls for (WP:First sentence).
There should be an "or" between the two bolded terms in the first sentence.
Do updated sources provide any more specificity in a definition than "at least three"?
I think something more relevant to the disease should be included in the WP:LEAD from the history section rather than the trivia of the town.
Consider also expanding the lead to three (or maybe four) paragraphs to offer a more comprehensive summary.
"Except for one study in Europe" is a sign of review article prose instead of encyclopedic writing.
All species names should be in italics for consistency.
The prognosis section states "A meta-analysis published in 2005", which should be able to be updated per WP:MEDDATE.

I hope these comments are helpful. Please let me know when and if you would like more comments to address. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 20:54, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]