Talk:Acute infectious thyroiditis
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 | Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Acute infectious thyroiditis.
|
Comments
editIn the introduction: In lines 3+4,try not to start adjacent sentences with the same wording, such as "Acute infectious thyroiditis", if you don't have to. In line 5, should "immune-compromised" be "immuno-compromised"? In line 7, possibly say "...most commonly 'found' in and immuno-compromised host".
Make sure you are adding periods to the ends of your sentences.
In the Cause section: You could probably reword the phrasing of the first sentence a little better. In line 6, "immuno-compromised" instead of "immune-compromised".
(Bleonard4 (talk) 02:19, 22 April 2012 (UTC))
It is also known of as, Suppurative thyroiditis, Microbial inflammatory thyroiditis, [3] Pyrogenic thyroiditis and Bacterial thyroiditis
The introduction is a bit confusing in terms of letting the reader know what you're planning to talk about, so I'd suggest possibly making the introduction a guide to what you're going to talk about throughout your article. You may want to also go though and check spelling to make sure it's the word you actually want to put in there. I had the same suggestion as the person above me in making sure that you don't capitalize the names of things you don't need to such as: Suppurative thyroiditis, Microbial inflammatory thyroiditis, [3] Pyrogenic thyroiditis and Bacterial thyroiditis. Also I was wondering if you needed to cite in that sentence, it seems like there was citing after things you were listing however you didn't go in depth with it explaining in where you'd need a cite. Unless you got all the things listed from different cites in which case I'd assume you'd just leave them. All in all I felt that your article was helpful and gave me a lot of information that I didn't know and that it was accessible to someone who didn't know anything about the article.
149.84.140.209 (talk) 19:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)kmf10
Overall I believe you have a good article, but some of the sentences are a bit confusing. In the introduction the first sentence is a run-on and could easily be fixed by some grammatical correction; also within the introduction the information seems to be all over the place, so maybe you could go back about and think of a more systematic way. There is a lot of good information in the article, it is just the sentences are a bit confusing and could use some serious work on editing. I did notice a lot of run-ons and sentences with incomplete thoughts. (MzCeci12 (talk) 20:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC))
The introduction seems repetitive. Try and switch around some of the wording so it doesn't sound like the same information all over agian. Also, I'm confused about the Epidemiology section at the end of your article. It does not fit well at the very end, and the information within seems like it should be added to the intro. Think about maybe getting rid of it and just putting it in the intro instead.
The CAUSES section could be more specific, especially with respect to the upper respiratory infections being a leading cause of this disease. Why is this so common? What specific types of upper respiratory infections are commonly seen? There is a spelling error in the third line of SYMPTOMS-"severe" is misspelled. The TREATMENT section looks good.
Overall, it's not bad. Maybe add a few more references, and go more in depth and explain certian processes and procedures that you mention. I noticed that there are only 5 paragraphs, and there are supposed to be a minimum of 8. (chelseavallone (talk) 19:44, 24 April 2012 (UTC))T
In the Introduction: Break the first sentence up into several sentences. If you leave it as is, then there should be some commas added. You mention twice that is a rare form of thyroiditis, I think you can eliminate the second reference to that. Then you would be able to move the statistic to the first reference to how rare it is. This would let readers know right away just how uncommon it is. I think you should consider abbreviating the disease name to ATI after using it a couple of times. It just becomes monotonous for the us having to read it over and over again. At the end of the introduction you list a few alternative names for the disease. I think these would be best served in the opening sentence. That way you could say, "Acute Infectious Thyroiditis also known as....... is a rare form of thyroiditis."
In the Causes Section: I think you listed the different types of bacteria that are known to cause this infection too many times. It is mentioned in the introduction once and then twice more in the causes section. It probably can be eliminated from the introduction and condensed to one spot in the causes section. I thought this section was well written, but I would have liked to see a sentence or two on what a fistula is. That would have helped readers connect the dots better. The last sentence of "causes" was confusing. It was a little lengthy and words such as "various" and "commonly." Also it would flow better if you said, "...and include:" instead of "...and can be seen below." Other than those small things I thought it was well written and enjoyable (Brady Bonacquisti (talk) 20:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
I find the first part to be a bit long and repetitive (from what is said in the actual body). I always thought this section as your one liner. Try to keep it as short and sweet as possible. (Shanna Ewoldt (talk) 6:15, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
The article overall is really well formed and put together, but you repeat yourself about some things like in the introduction, and the epidemiology with the percentage. Also when you say that "AIT is a rare form of Tyroiditis". (CNelson17 (talk) 15:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
This stub is fairly well composed. You might help strengthen the information by adding a few more references and trying to make it a little longer. I do not think the required 8 paragraphs is met. Some pictures might also help if possible. I did like the Subtypes of Thyroiditis/Synonyms & Causes section at the bottom but you might be able to add a little more there as well; it just seems a little out of place or messy. Other than these minor details I think you all did a good job on this stub.
(Dgklp18 (talk)
I thought it was a pretty good page. At times it seems slightly repetitive but nothing huge just rewording of a couple sentences would probably help. The biggest thing is that is seems a little short. Some more sources could be added and if possible more information in general. It seems like you might not hit the minimum requirements for the project. (Capt326 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC).
Peer review
editThis article was one of four submitted by a single editor for peer review. I closed this request (because only one open peer review is allowed per editor) but if someone who is working on this article wants additional feedback, they can submit their own request. WP:MOSMED and WP:MEDRS also have lots of information that should give the interested ideas for edits. Biosthmors (talk) 17:06, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Acute infectious thyroiditis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added
{{dead link}}tag to http://www.Thyroiditis.png/thumb/right/Acute - Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120429003226/http://www.thyroidmanager.org:80/chapter/acute-and-subacute-and-reidels-thyroiditis/ to http://www.thyroidmanager.org/chapter/acute-and-subacute-and-reidels-thyroiditis
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:04, 3 October 2016 (UTC)