Talk:Subglottic stenosis

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Subglottic stenosis/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tom (LT) (talk · contribs) 08:22, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I'll take up this review. I'll first read over the article a few times and then post my review in a day or two. Tom (LT) (talk) 08:22, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Assessment

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	This article contains numerous instances of jargon. I find some of the structure difficult to follow and feel it could use more paragraphs to separate different concepts. It tends to list or state facts without synthesising them to make an article of them.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The relevant MOS is WP:MEDMOS. See above.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	" Myer Cm, 3rd; O'Connor, D. M.; Cotton, R. T. (April 1994). "Proposed grading system for subglottic stenosis based on endotracheal tube sizes" is not a secondary source. I question the inclusion of specific facts and figures based on the statpearls source.
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Epidemiology, prognosis are just sentences. Mechanism is missing as a topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	The article is too brief in some sections to comment
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

Review

Overall it's clear that some effort has been put into this article. However it doesn't meet the good article criteria. As a reader I found that this article's language had a lot of jargon in it and was difficult to understand. There were a lot of lists interspersed with some facts but it was difficult to take away major elements. I don't think enough information was included in many sections, including the two sections that are just one sentence, to meet good article status. To improve this article I think further time could be taken synthesising the information, providing context, and fleshing out empty sections. I got the feeling this lack nuance and given the wide variety of potential causes I am sure that there would be different approaches depending on what the cause was and that this and other factors (such as a person's age) would highly influence prognosis.

I hope that helps and although I acknowledge the effort that was put into the article, it's not ready for GA status right now. Yours, Tom (LT) (talk) 04:21, 7 August 2021 (UTC)