Patholines:Editorial guidelines: Difference between revisions

(3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)

Line 90:

Content must be '''relevant''' to a pathology practitioner. Every entry must directly tell the reader what to do in a certain situation, or contain the most relevant information that is needed for a such entry.

The organization of gross and microscopic examinations must be '''finding-based''' rather than diagnosis-based (as in form example [[Kidney autopsy#Microscopic evaluation]]). It ~~must~~ be assumed that the readers do ''not know the names'' for the pathologic findings at hand, ''nor which conditions'' are causing them when needing to use Patholines in the situation at hand, ~~trying~~ to ~~find~~ their ~~way through~~ the ~~inter-article structure of Patholines (described in next section)~~.

The organization of articles, as well as gross and microscopic examinations within articles, must be '''finding-based''' rather than diagnosis-based (as in form example [[Kidney autopsy#Microscopic evaluation]]), since it is oriented towards readers who presumably have a case at hand where they don't yet know the diagnosis. It should also be assumed that the readers do ''not know the names'' for the pathologic findings at hand, ''nor which conditions'' are causing them when needing to use Patholines in the situation at hand. Thus, findings should be given by images, followed by how to integrate their absence or presence to point toward the most likely diagnosis or differential diagnoses.

Text should be written in '''imperative''' format whenever possible, such as "Look at..." or "Avoid...", rather than stating facts.

Line 151:

<nowiki>[[File:Histopathology of ovarian serous borderline tumor.jpg|thumb|350px|Image description.]]</nowiki>

Images should be large enough in articles to clearly '''show''' their relevant findings, even without clicking on them to see larger versions. Findings are preferably '''labeled''' within images as shown, since the purpose is to teach them to people who don't know them yet, so they may not even know what part of the image to look at. For better flow, '''avoid repeating''' such findings in the image caption or in the article prose. If possible, do not use '''(Fig. 1)''' in the text and a separate figure elsewhere, but rather have it as a gallery directly following the related text, such as this segment of [[Brain autopsy]]:

Images should be large enough in articles to clearly '''show''' their relevant findings, even without clicking on them to see larger versions. Findings are preferably '''labeled''' within images as shown, since the purpose is to teach them to people who don't know them yet, so they may not even know what part of the image to look at. For better flow, '''avoid repeating''' such findings in the image caption or in the article prose. If possible, do not use '''(Fig. 1)''' in the text and a separate figure elsewhere, but rather have it as a gallery directly following the related text (see [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Gallery_tag the "''Help:Gallery tag''" page in Wikipedia] for formatting), such as this segment of [[Brain autopsy]]:

{|class="wikitable"

| '''Infarction'''<br>Attempt to estimate the '''age''' of any infarct. Also look at '''blood vessels''' for thrombus or stenosis.

Line 159:

</gallery>

|}

Similarly, preferably avoid sequencing of images into '''"a, b, c, etc"'''. If a caption needs to say more than "upper right" or similar, then make it a separate image and give it a separate caption.

The '''image description''' should mention the purpose or relevance of each mentioned finding (such as "Typical features of the condition are as follows:").

@@ Line 90: / Line 90: @@
 Content must be '''relevant''' to a pathology practitioner. Every entry must directly tell the reader what to do in a certain situation, or contain the most relevant information that is needed for a such entry.
-The organization of gross and microscopic examinations must be '''finding-based''' rather than diagnosis-based (as in form example [[Kidney autopsy#Microscopic evaluation]]). It must be assumed that the readers do ''not know the names'' for the pathologic findings at hand, ''nor which conditions'' are causing them when needing to use Patholines in the situation at hand, trying to find their way through the inter-article structure of Patholines (described in next section).
+The organization of articles, as well as gross and microscopic examinations within articles, must be '''finding-based''' rather than diagnosis-based (as in form example [[Kidney autopsy#Microscopic evaluation]]), since it is oriented towards readers who presumably have a case at hand where they don't yet know the diagnosis. It should also be assumed that the readers do ''not know the names'' for the pathologic findings at hand, ''nor which conditions'' are causing them when needing to use Patholines in the situation at hand. Thus, findings should be given by images, followed by how to integrate their absence or presence to point toward the most likely diagnosis or differential diagnoses.
 Text should be written in '''imperative''' format whenever possible, such as "Look at..." or "Avoid...", rather than stating facts.
@@ Line 151: / Line 151: @@
 <nowiki>[[File:Histopathology of ovarian serous borderline tumor.jpg|thumb|350px|Image description.]]</nowiki>
-Images should be large enough in articles to clearly '''show''' their relevant findings, even without clicking on them to see larger versions. Findings are preferably '''labeled''' within images as shown, since the purpose is to teach them to people who don't know them yet, so they may not even know what part of the image to look at. For better flow, '''avoid repeating''' such findings in the image caption or in the article prose. If possible, do not use '''(Fig. 1)''' in the text and a separate figure elsewhere, but rather have it as a gallery directly following the related text, such as this segment of [[Brain autopsy]]:
+Images should be large enough in articles to clearly '''show''' their relevant findings, even without clicking on them to see larger versions. Findings are preferably '''labeled''' within images as shown, since the purpose is to teach them to people who don't know them yet, so they may not even know what part of the image to look at. For better flow, '''avoid repeating''' such findings in the image caption or in the article prose. If possible, do not use '''(Fig. 1)''' in the text and a separate figure elsewhere, but rather have it as a gallery directly following the related text (see [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Gallery_tag the "''Help:Gallery tag''" page in Wikipedia] for formatting), such as this segment of [[Brain autopsy]]:
 {|class="wikitable"
 | '''Infarction'''<br>Attempt to estimate the '''age''' of any infarct. Also look at '''blood vessels''' for thrombus or stenosis.
@@ Line 159: / Line 159: @@
 </gallery>
 |}
+Similarly, preferably avoid sequencing of images into '''"a, b, c, etc"'''. If a caption needs to say more than "upper right" or similar, then make it a separate image and give it a separate caption.
 The '''image description''' should mention the purpose or relevance of each mentioned finding (such as "Typical features of the condition are as follows:").

Patholines:Editorial guidelines: Difference between revisions

Navigation menu

Search