332:
produced 376,000). I used the qualifier there to distinguish from posterior keratoconus, which is a different disease, as did my source for that section. I will reword that para to remove the word anterior. If anything, posterior keratoconus could have its own article under that name, though it is a
167:
Overall the article has it's potentials. Grammer and others are fine, the main things are the lead should bring relevance, history should be expanded, and the diagnosis part should first give rationale for methods, then describe the methods themselves. I think this article is a good example of what
139:
Cause, minor rephrase "the disease sometimes running within families" to "the disease running in certain families." Rephrase "cornea by proteases (a class of enzymes), which break some of the collagen" to "cornea by proteases, enzymes that break some of collagen." By the way, what kind of protease,
123:
Diagnosis is hard to follow. Should contain a mini-intro about "rationale" for the methods. Ex. First
Snellen test, since it's what every opthalamologist do first. Then physical examination of cornea such as curvature, features, colors, because keratoconus has the following features. Then go into
144:
Genetic background should be expanded to more than just one sentence. Most people don't bother to read the journal, so should summarize about what loci is the putative gene involved, presumably the mutation runs in the family, and what the the suspected gene (cornea specific enhancer element,
111:
I would drop the inline citation in the lead, it's distracting and inconsistent, as multiple claims are given in the lead, while only one is given a citation. (similary, in medical or science journals, rarely is the abstract given a citation, and the lead is the abstract
305:. Good information, it seems very well researched. The biggest problem lies in the short paragraphs that make for choppy prose. Combine or expand any under 3 sentences to make for fuller ideas and smoother prose. 2) I'm a bit concerned about the note at the end on
309:. That suggests this article should be at 'anterior keratoconus', and a more general article or a disambiguation at Keratoconus. Otherwise the other condition is buried in a spot few would find if they only see this article. -
180:
Very good edits by the nominator, I haven't comprehensively re-read the article, but right now looks a lot better. I'll come back in a few days to see if any changes are made and give my support then. Nice job.
117:
History part is a bit insufficient. In addition to naming the people involved in studying the disease, should contain information about what did they "know" at the time and what "remained" to be known.
33:(Self-nom). This article has expanded substantially over the last few months, and I believe offers a comprehensive overview of a little-known, yet significant ophthalmic disease. A
168:
wikipedia should have more as its FA, so I won't oppose here. These comments (objections) are easily actionable, when they are fixed, I'll give my strong support.
223:
Removed corporate names from
Intrastromal Rings section, though I think the device names ought to remain, as to many these are the names by which they are known.
106:
The lead should give "why" it's important. How many people are affected each year, prevalence (sp), what age group. Also, should mention something about etiology.
34:
17:
383:
wrong with them. I have however reworded them to remove the split infinitives. They were the only such examples I could find in the article. --
342:
That's fine to justify the naming. Once the rest of the items that have been brought up here have been addressed, I would certainly support. -
154:
Other diseases: don't put the author who wrote a review in this section. Instead, link to that section as inline citation or as reference.
367:
make me feel slightly nauseated. Split infinitives are ugly, and split infitives with inserted clauses are unspeakably ugly, IMHO.
149:
The treatment sections are better than other IMO. But various mentions of company names, is it proper? I am not for either side.
124:
specific methods. The current form goes to the methods first without providing a rationale first, and I think it's unclear.
59:
119:
Even though more about description of disorder can be added, history part now looks very good and put into context
403:
387:
371:
346:
337:
313:
288:
251:
233:
207:
185:
172:
88:
74:
43:
217:
182:
169:
69:
195:
Strengthen lead section to indicate prevalence, age groups affected, and some introduction to etiology.
379:
I am of course biased, having written those sentences, but as a native speaker didn't see anything
64:
54:
333:
rare condition. I will also review the text to try to combine some of the shorter paragraphs. --
132:
The sentence "opthal tend not to ask what patients see," what's the rationale? Is it relevant?
359:. Call me conservative (and consider that I am not a native speaker), but constructions like
400:
368:
192:
Thanks for the comprehensive response above. Have made the following changes so far:
320:'Ordinary' keratoconus is almost never called 'anterior keratoconus', but simply as
343:
310:
85:
27:
384:
334:
285:
248:
230:
204:
40:
361:
can affect the person's ability to, for example, legally drive a car
245:
Expanded on a couple of short paragraphs, and combined another two.
37:
was requested some weeks ago and comments raised there addressed.
53:. Would have expected it to be one after finding it by chance. —
365:
are effective enough to allow the patient to still drive a car
227:
is turning up in PubMed searches paper titles, for example.
140:
any proteases? Are they overexpressed or just overactive?
242:
Rewrote diagnosis to explain clinical methodology better.
201:
Removed reviewing authors' names from the final section.
213:
Rephrased 'Cause'. More work on enzyme action required.
399:. Well referenced and comprehensive, a fine article.
220:library in the next few days is required, I think.
126:Diagnosis section now is clearer and easy to read.
276:Gel injection as a intrastromal ring modality
8:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Featured article candidates
273:Added handheld keratoscope and retinoscopy
216:Expanded history slightly, but a visit to
198:Remove single citation from lead section.
264:Removed redundant term from first para.
7:
279:Combined some of the shorter paras.
24:
84:Very good and detailed article.
1:
328:produced 182 hits; one for
422:
404:04:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
388:21:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
372:10:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
347:22:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
338:19:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
314:18:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
289:19:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
252:07:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
234:21:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
208:19:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
186:19:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
173:22:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
89:17:00, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
75:11:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
44:10:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
270:Added to genetics section
330:"keratoconus -anterior"
218:Moorfields Eye Hospital
326:"anterior keratoconus"
239:Added more to History.
307:Posterior keratoconus
282:Added incidence rate
257:The latest changes:
291:
254:
236:
210:
183:Temporary account
170:Temporary account
46:
413:
324:. (A google for
283:
267:Expanded history
246:
228:
202:
67:
62:
57:
38:
421:
420:
416:
415:
414:
412:
411:
410:
65:
60:
55:
31:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
419:
417:
409:
408:
407:
406:
391:
390:
376:
375:
352:
351:
350:
349:
317:
316:
299:
298:
297:
296:
295:
294:
293:
292:
280:
277:
274:
271:
268:
265:
259:
258:
255:
243:
240:
237:
221:
214:
211:
199:
196:
189:
188:
175:
159:
158:
157:
156:
151:
146:
142:
135:
134:
128:
127:
120:
114:
108:
100:
99:
98:Some comments:
92:
91:
78:
77:
30:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
418:
405:
402:
398:
395:
394:
393:
392:
389:
386:
382:
378:
377:
374:
373:
370:
366:
362:
358:
354:
353:
348:
345:
341:
340:
339:
336:
331:
327:
323:
319:
318:
315:
312:
308:
304:
301:
300:
290:
287:
281:
278:
275:
272:
269:
266:
263:
262:
261:
260:
256:
253:
250:
244:
241:
238:
235:
232:
226:
222:
219:
215:
212:
209:
206:
200:
197:
194:
193:
191:
190:
187:
184:
179:
176:
174:
171:
166:
163:
162:
161:
160:
155:
152:
150:
147:
145:protease...?)
143:
141:
137:
136:
133:
130:
129:
125:
121:
118:
115:
113:
109:
107:
104:
103:
102:
101:
97:
94:
93:
90:
87:
83:
80:
79:
76:
73:
72:
68:
63:
58:
52:
49:
48:
47:
45:
42:
36:
29:
26:
19:
396:
380:
364:
360:
356:
355:
329:
325:
321:
306:
302:
224:
177:
164:
153:
148:
138:
131:
122:
116:
110:
105:
95:
81:
70:
50:
32:
381:drastically
322:keratoconus
35:peer review
28:Keratoconus
401:Kosebamse
369:Kosebamse
225:"Intacs"
397:Support
165:Summary
96:Support
82:Support
56:Nightst
51:Support
357:Object
344:Taxman
311:Taxman
303:Object
178:update
112:here).
86:Tarret
385:BillC
335:BillC
286:BillC
249:BillC
231:BillC
205:BillC
66:llion
41:BillC
16:<
363:or
71:(?)
284:--
247:--
229:--
203:--
39:--
61:a
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.