Talk:Infectious mononucleosis/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: Femke (talk · contribs) 20:55, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello Konstantina. Thank you very much for improving this article and nominating it for GA. I see you're relatively new to Wikipedia editing. You may not yet be aware of our guidance on what sources Wikipedia prefers in medical articles, so I advise you to take a quick look there. Most importantly, medical sources should typically be secondary sources and relatively new sources. For a big topic like this, there should usually be reviews available published in the last five years. Older reviews might be outdated and we can't ascertain that they are correct without checking more recent sources. A quick glance at the article reveals that quite a few sources are older than five years old. For instance:

• The source in the lead that says there is promising vaccine research stems from 2007. Is this research still considered promising? Or was it a dead end?
• Thus current evidence still suggest the 33 data 49 day between affections and symptom presentation? The source stems from 2001.
• You added a 1978 source about other causes of infectious mononucleosis. Are they still classified as infectious mononucleosis? And is this percentage still true?
• I believe there is now much stronger evidence linking EBV to multiple sclerosis. You probably want to replace the 2010 source with a newer review.
• the source sites that there is a 5% chance of complication. However our article about myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome says 8% to 15% of people develop this syndrome after infectious mononucleosis.

Another GA requirement is broadness. You may want to improve the section in the pathophysiology. It currently talks a bit about the differential diagnosis, which is better placed at the differential diagnosis section, it doesn't talk too much about the pathophysiology. For instance, according to this summary source, it spreads via the lymphic system, which we dont quite mention.

All in all, the article requires quite some work before it meets the GA criteria. I think the best way forward is for me to fail this nomination for now. If you would like some mentoring and additional tips on how to improve medical articles, my talk page is always open. Another great place to meet people But loads of experience editing medical articles is at The WikiProject Medicine. You are free to re-nominate when you've addressed the comments, and updated the article to use better sourcing. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:55, 29 February 2024 (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.