Talk:Late onset congenital adrenal hyperplasia/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Vaticidalprophet (talk · contribs) 00:38, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): Mostly fine, but see below. b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): Fits the basic MOS criteria as relevant to GAs. It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): In-depth referencing to reliable sources (or attributions). b (citations to reliable sources): In-depth referencing to reliable sources (or attributions). c (OR): Not really the sort of article plagued by those issues anyway. d (copyvio and plagiarism): Mostly fine, but see below. It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): Hits everything you would want to know. b (focused): Doesn't veer off too much; deals with the relevant issues. It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: I did see the discussions here on the talk page! You did an excellent job of addressing that controversy, and the article is all the better for it. It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: Major content disputes seem to be well in the past. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): No images. For an article like this, probably not a big deal. I think it could theoretically be improved with images, but at the GA level it's not an issue I'd push for. b (appropriate use with suitable captions): See above.
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

This is a pretty solid article, overall. Some quibbles:

• Some of the wording risks being impenetrable to a general audience, though I'm not of the school of thought that this is a serious handicap for most medical articles. As someone reasonably knowledgeable about the topic, I think that it's fine overall, but you could really do with making the molecular genetics look less imposing to a general-audience reader skimming through -- hitting a block of exceptionally technical writing before getting to the most important sections to most readers (diagnosis, management, and the intersex controversy) can easily put people off.
• Somewhat related to my last note, the molecular genetics section involves a lot of direct copying. This isn't a copyvio because of the licensing of the text, but the two issues combined give me pause. Is there a way to make this section more of a paraphrase?

I think this can definitely be a pass, but I'd like to get your thoughts on those issues first to make sure we've picked any last low-hanging fruit before I formally make it GA. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 02:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure if the above review is directed to a specific user but one could: move the molecular genetics section down (with perhaps the last paragraph finding its way into Diagonsis)...it's a bit tricky since you want to be able to refer to the CYP21A2 gene (which is best explained in Molecular Genetics). Is it just the sentences with cites to 23 that are reusing attributed text?Maneesh (talk) 08:24, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

The nominator was @Maxim Masiutin, so the review is directed at him, though your advice might be helpful. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 09:13, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Maneesh is the creator and the major contributor to this page, will edit the page according to your suggestions. That's good lack of images is not a problem for the page like that. I may add a diagram (scheme) however that shows the path of steroid transformation by enzymes from cholesterol towards cortisol so the readers will see that a problem with each of the steroids may cause this condition. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 22:31, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Regarding primary editors -- that's fair, there's a tendency to assume the GA nominator is the primary editor. Post-editing, everything looks good for the GA level. At this point, I'll call it approved. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 01:38, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I did just make some changes to the Molecular Genetics section to paraphrase, smooth out, adjust claims a bit to account for the quality of evidence etc. please just check since you just approved it (I wouldn't want to be accused of bait and switch)Maneesh (talk) 02:11, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Entirely fine. This is GA, not FA -- the expectation is that articles can still change, and indeed will change if they're working towards FA. No issues with the changes I can see. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 03:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)