Talk:Lead poisoning/GA1
GA Review
editArticle (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Initial comments
editI'm pleased to be able to review this article which is well-written, well-sourced and interesting to read.
First impression is that there are no concerns with any of the quick-fail criteria. More detailed review will follow. --RexxS (talk) 21:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Detailed review
editGA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Engaging, well-written article, easily GA-class.
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose quality:
- (1) I have a slight concern about use of compound nouns, such as "Organolead", "wristdrop", "footdrop". I accept that these words have specific meanings as compounds, but are uncommon in English as a single word. Perhaps the hyphenated form, e.g. "Organo-lead", would be better stylistically? (2) I would also prefer "corrosivity" to "corrositivity" - the latter probably exists, but is much less common. (3) Shouldn't "in utero" be italicised per WP:MOS#Foreign words?
- (1) Organolead -> organic lead. wristdrop -> wrist drop, footdrop -> foot drop (Those are the names of the articles for the latter two anyway, so probably the more standard usage). (2) Done. (3) Good catch, done. delldot ∇. 00:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
- (1) I have a slight concern about use of compound nouns, such as "Organolead", "wristdrop", "footdrop". I accept that these words have specific meanings as compounds, but are uncommon in English as a single word. Perhaps the hyphenated form, e.g. "Organo-lead", would be better stylistically? (2) I would also prefer "corrosivity" to "corrositivity" - the latter probably exists, but is much less common. (3) Shouldn't "in utero" be italicised per WP:MOS#Foreign words?
- B. MoS compliance:
- Also WP:MOSMED compliance is good.
- A. Prose quality:
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- Typically, the best articles don't have references in the Lead. Since the Lead summarises the rest of the article, everything there should be verifiable by citations in the related part of the article. Check to see if you can remove the refs in the Lead - if not it suggests that the lead contains content not present in the rest of the article.
- Done, hiding some in case I need to move them out of the lead later. delldot ∇. 00:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
- Typically, the best articles don't have references in the Lead. Since the Lead summarises the rest of the article, everything there should be verifiable by citations in the related part of the article. Check to see if you can remove the refs in the Lead - if not it suggests that the lead contains content not present in the rest of the article.
- C. No original research:
- A. References to sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- The vast majority of edits are by the nominator. The article has been much improved and is stable.
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- The images also have alt text. A slight quibble is that the alt text in three images mentions "electron microscopy photos", ""MRI scans" and "light micrograph", which don't really belong in the alt text - they would be better mentioned in the caption.
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- None of the comments made would disqualify this as GA-class.
- Pass or Fail:
This article should be quite capable of becoming a featured article. I have made comments above that I hope will help in that process. One further comment: WP:JARGON is difficult to meet in medical articles, but not impossible. I would recommend reviewing the lead in particular and attempting to explain uncommon terms there. I know you have wiki-linked many of them, but I would suggest that you could rephrase many of these into much more accessible English. For example renal redirects to kidney - why not use the most familiar words (at least in the lead)?
Nevertheless, the nominator deserves considerable credit for the work done in bringing this article up to, and beyond, GA-class. Well done! --RexxS (talk) 22:30, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you so much, the review is very sensible, all your points are great advice. I'll tackle these tonight! delldot ∇. 23:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- Every one of your points addressed, I think. delldot ∇. 01:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
- Nice work. As you improve the article further towards FA, I'd still recommend looking at ways of making the article, especially the Lead, as easy as possible for a non-medic to understand - even at the risk of a loss of precision in the Lead. For example, how does "Lead interferes with a variety of body processes and is toxic to many parts including the heart, lungs, bones, intestines, kidney, and the reproductive and nervous systems" sound? It's less precise (but that's covered in detail in the article sections), but doesn't rely on the reader taking the time to click the link to find out what (e.g.) "hematopoietic" means - as I had to! If you think this sort of exercise is worthwhile, please feel free to bounce ideas off me - I'll do my best to help. --RexxS (talk) 14:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
- Good point, I'll do a copy edit looking for technical language. In the lead I'll go for "is toxic to many organs and tissues including..." Thanks again for the review and the good advice. I'll most certainly take you up on your kind offer of further help! delldot ∇. 01:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)