This article has been receiving attention recently, and I think there is reasonable scope of it going forward to Featured Article status. For that reason, I would welcome some outside review on its scientific accuracy (particularly from anyone with ophthalmology or refractive surgery expertise), and on format and style. The article is not a specially long one (at 2,400 words/15K characters), and I myself am generally satisfied with its coverage and depth, but I would welcome any viewpoints on that. BillC 16:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are too many facts and statistics that aren't directly cited. For example, "A ring of yellow-brown to olive-green pigmentation known as a Fleischer Ring and caused by deposition of iron within the cornea can be observed in around 50% of keratoconic eyes." Where does 50% come from? Seeing that it's short I think there's space for a "History" section. Otherwise, it seems well written and informative with a nice set of external links. --Oldak Quill 08:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments! I'll try to beef up the unsupported statements with citations. It might be a struggle to produce a 'History' section with more than two or three sentences, but I will see what I can find. BillC 19:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Excellent work, Bill! I have only a couple minor suggestions right now. I would consider changing the title of "Diagnosis" to "Signs" or "Signs and Diagnosis", then merge the section entitled "Possible complications" with it. As it stands now, there is a section for signs and a section for severe signs, and I tend to think of surgical complications when I see "complications". Whatever you choose to do, I might also consider adding mention of Munson's sign in signs/diagnosis section. Treatment section: Consider noting that patients are often advised not to rub their eyes. Consider noting that eyeglasses may suffice in mild cases or until the irregular astigmatism advances to a point where visual acuity is not acceptable to the person. Not sure if you want to add a bit on non-surgical treatment/management of hydrops. I believe epikeratophakia and thermokeratoplasty aren't common surgical options anymore, so I'm not sure if you even want to mention them. Keep up the great work! AED 23:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments! I'll get onto them. BillC 12:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tried it as a subsection ('severe symptoms') of symptoms. We can see how this looks. BillC 23:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rather than a section entitled "Treatment" and another one entitled "Other surgical options", how about one section called "Treatment" with "Contact lenses" and "Surgical options" as the two main subsections. "Surgical options" could then have "Corneal transplant", "Epi-k", "Corneal rings...", and "RK" as sub-subsections. AED 06:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Points summarised below: