Talk:Diaphragmatic rupture/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Bait30 (talk · contribs) 03:43, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I'll try to get started on this review soon. I'll review prose first going down the page by section, then do images, then do references last.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 03:43, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I am willing to work to make it a GA. Steve M (talk) 14:04, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Lead

• "Signs and symptoms included" should be "include". (1a)  Done
• "occurs in about 5% of cases of severe blunt trauma to the trunk": the reference that's used for that is neuroscience-related. Nothing about diaphragmatic ruptures. Is it maybe the wrong page? I used Google Books. (2b)  Done - better source added

Signs and symptoms

• Good

Causes

• Good

Mechanism

• Good

 Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 05:07, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Diagnosis

• Good

Treatment

• "The injury usually increases": I think it would be more clear if it said "The injury usually increases in size" or "The rupture usually becomes larger" or some variation of that. (1a)  Done
  "Early surgery is important": Since this sentence makes a claim like this, I would add the citation to the end of this sentence as well. (2b)
  @Bait30, the citation at the end of the sentence already covers that claim. Steve M (talk) 18:51, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Prognosis

• Good

Epidemiology

• "Over 90% occur": it's a statistic so this needs a citation at the end of the sentence.

@Bait30, the book citation covers that statistic. Steve M (talk) 18:54, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

History

• It would probably be better and more concise as one paragraph. I don't see the need for three separate ones. (1a)  Done

Images

• For the dog picture, the copyright is confusing me. I believe it needs to link to the original image and credit the original uploader, File:Zwerchfellruptur_Hund.jpg per CC BY-SA 3.0. (6a)
• For the spleen picture, I'm not seeing anywhere on BMC Gastroenterology that says it's CC BY 2.0. So I'm not sure that it's the appropriate tag and if it can be used. (6a)
• For "Left posterior diaphragmatic rupture undergoing surgery", I would move it to right under the "Location" subheading because right now, it looks like it's part of the "Treatment" section. (1b) Done

 Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 02:08, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

For the dog picture, I made the Commons description link to the original file. Is that attribution sufficient? Steve M (talk) 15:03, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not sure, so I asked on commons:. I'll let you know if they say that's good.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 19:51, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Reference numbers are from this version.

• My god, this isn't your fault and it doesn't go against you for the GA, but refs 2 and 4 are a pain to open. I have institutional access but the stupid website for the Clinics journals is so messed up and broken that I had to use Sci-Hub to open it.
• Ref 7: I'm still not seeing anything on pg 182 of that book that has anything to do with diaphragmatic ruptures.

@Bait30, on Ref 7, I fixed the dates. What is left to do? I believe that I have completed all the tasks. Steve M (talk) 01:37, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Steve M, could you take a look at the JP Nolan source. I can't verify the information from that book.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 01:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

@Bait30, I have removed all of that source as it was not reliable. It was too old and inaccessible. aeschyIus (talk) 17:20, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

GA checklist

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   You had an 85.8% match on earwig!!! But I looked closer at it, and the copyvio was from a journal article that was published in 2017 and the offending text was added to the wiki article in 2008. Turns out the 2017 journal is a predatory journal.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Alright, I'll leave you to it.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 02:33, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

@Bait30, what is a predatory journal? I have had a hard time understanding what it is. Steve M (talk) 03:36, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

See WP:VANPRED. Basically it's a journal that claims to be peer-reviewed but isn't really. They're predatory because they just publish manuscripts from people that pay them. Which explains why that 85.8% happened. That journal didn't even bother to check to see that they plagiarized from Wikipedia because they don't even care.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 05:46, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it seems as though the nominator has retired from Wikipedia. This article does have the potential to become a GA though, so if you decide to unretire, or if someone else wants to take this on, then feel free to renominate!  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 02:48, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

@Bait30 I have unretired. aeschyIus (talk) 17:22, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.