Talk:Brugada syndrome/GA1
Latest comment: 5 years ago by PeaBrainC in topic GA Review
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Natureium (talk · contribs) 16:25, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
I've never done a GAN review before, so please let me know (politely) if I'm doing anything wrong.
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Suggested changes:
- Lead: new mutation -> new genetic mutation :
Done PeaBrainC (talk) 20:59, 12 July 2018 (UTC) - Causes: disturbed -> disrupted? : Done PeaBrainC (talk) 20:59, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
- Don't know if " known as loss of function mutations." fits in the paragraph : Done PeaBrainC (talk) 20:59, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
- Does the term "overlap syndrome" apply? The article on overlap syndrome only describes it in the context of autoimmune connective tissue disorders.:
Not done Overlap syndrome is certainly a correct term to describe, for example, the phenotype of Brugada and Long QT 3 syndrome in the same patient, or Brugada and ARVC. I appreciate the current article for overlap syndrome doesn't explicitly mention this and I will try to add a paragraph to that article in due course PeaBrainC (talk) 20:59, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
- in SCN5A that reduced -> reduces : Done PeaBrainC (talk) 20:59, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
- Don't know if " known as loss of function mutations." fits in the paragraph :
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
Mechanism: heart racing -> rapid heart rate :
Done PeaBrainC (talk) 17:19, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- Is it verifiable with no original research?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
- Sources # 9, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 25, 28, 39, 41, 42, are primary sources, but are mainly used for background information
- C. It contains no original research:
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
Hi @Natureium:, thanks for reviewing this article. It's only my 2nd GAN but to my inexperienced eyes looks like you've done a good job. I will get on with making the amendments you have suggested and mark them as done on this page as I go. It may take a few days - busy times in the real world! PeaBrainC (talk) 09:48, 12 July 2018 (UTC)