Talk:Endoscope

Review

• The first reference "Süptitz Wenko, and Sophie Heimes. Photonics: Technical Applications of Light: Infographics. Spectaris GmbH, 2016" has some information missing such as doi (available here: https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/ebooks/PM/Photonics-Technical-Applications-of-Light/eISBN-9781510622678/10.1117/3.2507083).
• The introduction is fine.
• The historic section required minimal edit (example: endosocpe; some – in the text, which I fixed) and some part could be more cohesive instead of being a stream of short phrases. *In the Rod lens subsection some references are required.
• Small edit was required in the composition section.
• The clinical application section was fine, only exception was the last point with etc, which is redundant
• The classification section could be better written, in the present form is a bit chaotic, maybe it can be followed the same subdivision as in the clinical application section.
• The recent development section is fine.

In general I would have placed a link to the wikipedia page of Endoscopy as the main article. Filippo Ghisoni (talk) 13:11, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

• The article is well-structured and the content is clear.--Liuyrrr (talk) 13:20, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Review by Niranjan - Wikipedia course PoliMi

your article overall is fine.

Here my suggestions

• It would have been nice if you provided the exact type of endoscope to diagnose/inspect different diseases or organs.
• Provide the most types of endoscopes and their application.
• Since it is the technical side of the article compared to the endoscopy Wikipedia page, it is expected to cover the selection of material specifically for medical purposes to reduce the risk of infections, perforation, or tear of inner muscles, etc. This content has to be developed.

Well done! Niranjan — Preceding undated comment added 16:17, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Observations and suggestions for improvements

The following observations and suggestions for improvements were collected, following expert review of the article within the Science, Technology, Society and Wikipedia course at the Politecnico di Milano, in June 2022.

Careful revision of the text for syntactic correctness and lexical choices is recommended

-- BarettoDiArchitettura (talk) 18:51, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

This article is about medical endoscopes

There are a wide range of applications for endoscopes. Is there any defensible reason why the title is used for just one of them? If not this article should be renamed Medical endoscope or Endoscope (medical) and the current title should cover the entire class of endoscopes. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 19:22, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Good point well made! I came here to find out about the technology in general (I'm more interested in being able to inspect a ceiling void than internal organs). Newburyjohn (talk) 12:58, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Endoscopy history and endoscope history don't seem to match

Endoscopy history section and Endoscope history section don't seem to match. Both of them mention the history of the endoscope. Should there be changes to both? ZeOmnipotent (talk) 10:46, 1 January 2025 (UTC)