Talk:Osmotherapy

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Neurology task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

There

There is very little non-technical information on the web about this. --Digitalgadget 04:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article was the subject of an educational assignment.

template at the top of the talk page for each article:

This article was the subject of an educational assignment in 2013 Q3. Further details were available on the "Education Program:Georgia Institute of Technology/Introduction to Neuroscience (Fall 2013)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki.

I improved this page on osmotherapy after reading scholarly articles on this topic. I deleted little information that was already on the stub page. This page was developed as part of Georgia Tech's Neuroscience class. MeeraEJohn (talk) 23:55, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review from fellow classmate
1. Quality of Information: 2
2. Article size: 2
3. Readability: 1 Some words need to be hyper-linked and/or explained. e.g. ischemia
4. Refs: 2
5. Links: 1 Some red internal Wikipedia inks, please fix.
6. Responsive to comments: 2
7. Formatting: 2
8. Writing: 1 Sometimes article gets off topic under some headings. Keep it focused to the topic of the heading.
9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2
10. Outstanding?: 1 Is cerebral edema the only thing osmotherapy treats? If so the article feels like it should be about cerebral edema with only some sections on osmotherapy.
_______________
Total: 16 out of 20
Williamjhendry (talk) 04:42, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Red links refer to needed pages. Red means that wiki currently doesn't have a page showing potential topics for fututre wiki pages. I think it's okay to have red links. I'm not sure what you mean by fixing it, please explain. MeeraEJohn (talk) 16:10, 25 November 2013 (UTC) Also there exists a wiki page on Cerebral Edema(not a stub), and its treatment section mentions osmotherapy(hyperlinked). If you go to the history, you can see how wiki page that existed for osmotherapy was just a stub qualifying this topic for Neuro class assignment. That's why this cannot just fit within cerebral edema page.MeeraEJohn (talk) 16:22, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay to have red links (#5 states "...used red links (WP:RED) for needed pages."). However, articles like Sulfonylurea_receptor, TRPM4, Vasopressin_receptor_antagonist, and Saline_(medicine)#Hypertonic_saline exist, and should not be red. Sheng Jiang (talk) 16:35, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

_______________

1. Quality of Information: 2
2. Article size: 2
3. Readability: 1
Sentences don't flow well (sentences like "Basic mechanism behind osmotherapy: osmotic agents--> increase serum osmolarity-->shifts fluid from intracellular compartment to intravascular compartment-->Shrinks brain-->decreases Intracranial Pressure" could be formatted better)
4. Refs: 1
Consider adding pubmed IDs and/or JSTOR links for easy access; also, try to reduce primary sources
5. Links: 1
Red links for existing topics
6. Responsive to comments: 2
7. Formatting: 2
8. Writing: 0
Try to keep NPOV (ie, "Osmotherapy is probably the only way to reduce cerebral edema", "Combining osmotherapy with other treatment mechanisms has a greater potential to treat cerebral edema more effectively.")
9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2
10. Outstanding?: 0
Does not read like a wikipedia page
_______________
Total: 13 out of 20

Sheng Jiang (talk) 16:35, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. Quality of Information: 2
2. Article size: 2
3. Readability: 1 - Can you explain some of your terms for people who are not familiar with your topic. For example, in your history section, you mention the term brain bulk, but don’t really explain what it is. Another example is the thecal sac (maybe put a link to another Wiki here).
4. Refs: 2
5. Links: 2
6. Responsive to comments: 2 - Quick responses to peer review comments so far.
7. Formatting: 2
8. Writing: 1 - I’m not a fan of the last sentence in the first paragraph where you have arrows to explain the steps of the mechanism of osmotherapy. Can you just refer to your picture or make a list with bullets or numbers? I think this would help the readability there. There are a few more examples of this throughout your article. Otherwise, you article is well written and well structured.
9. Used real name or has real name on User TALK page: 2
10. Outstanding?: 2
_______________ Total: 18 out of 20
HeatherAlysiaThompsonJenkins (talk) 19:55, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've edited this article again based on all the comments that seemed reasonable. Thanks! MeeraEJohn (talk) 05:13, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]