Talk:Mesangial proliferative glomerulonephritis

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Medicine: Nephrology Mid‑importance 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 Nephrology task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

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 Mesangial proliferative glomerulonephritis. PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles) The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine. Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

Whose work are you reviewing? Rebjmcd

Peer Review

Lead: From another medical student I thought the lead was really strong. It informed what it was, what can cause it, etc. I'd be concerned with how well people who are not coming from a medical field could follow it, but I imagine those people aren't reading this topic anyways.

Content: I really like the fact that there are so many links to various terms in the article, especially the various nephrological diseases associated with the topic. Makes it friendly for people without a strong medical background.

I think you could go into more detail on the presentation specifically with a section on clinical presentation that covers more symptoms etc. Or you could potentially go into more detail on how they come up with a diagnosis with a little more on the tests and what other conditions it could be that present similarly.

Tone and balance:

Tone is appropriate and unbiased

Sources and references:

There is a spot that indicates a citation is needed which I assume means you're planning on adding one in that spot. Otherwise the article is properly cited both within the article and in the references section.

Organization:

If it were me I might split up the clinical presentation into it's own subheading just to make it easier for someone who may be reading the page just to find something specific.

Images and media:

I like the image you chose because it provides a good visualization of what could be happening if you pair it with your description. It also makes it easier to visualize the anatomy and how that relates to the disease process.

Overall impressions:

Overall I think it is a good article that does a nice job of fleshing out and explaining a disease process that is pretty complicated and hard to explain. It is hard to say whether explaining things in more detail would help as it really depends on how strong the reader's medical background is. I especially like the summary in the lead and the visual aid — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jab0912 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 October 2021 and 20 November 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rebjmcd. Peer reviewers: Jab0912.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:04, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]