This is a review for the reviews on Hemothorax
The review process for any form of medical linked wikipages are quite lengthy, but still follow the rules of the WP:WIAGA review check off. They cover all information in the article, the reliability, and accuracy due to the nature of the articles. These are looked at by many of people for information and inaccuracy could lead to deadly results. All things are to be taken very seriously. Luckily there is almost no form of biased opinions in medicine. The only real topics that could possibly be biased (that come to mind) are the treatments and what is best in any given situation.
The leads are looked at for more than just a "hook" into the article. It seems that for a GA in a medical article they need to have almost a minor excerpt of all topics to quickly define the whole thing. The leads are usually in 2 paragraphs and the reviews go through and look at each aspect. Definition of the term, causes, symptoms and signs(prognosis). The info box is included in this all though many of the "specialties" can be referred in many different ways given how the term might be treated. In this case hemothorax is a term that can be seen in many different situations.
In medicine there is no real way to make an article argumentative, the content should very easily kept neutral. There might be a lot of arguments behind the scene on a few subjects. In lue of this, it seems like there is a lot more detail oriented aspects. Like what information is accurate, what could be explained in more detail, what needs to be reworded, what content is missing, etc. This leads makes the articles super lengthy and in depth, which is always a good thing. The reviews tend to leave a "check list" of everything that can be added or changed in the article for the interested parties to go off of to help make it a GA. These check list items don't always guarantee a GA ranking, but it definitely sets the article in the right direction.
In this case there are multiple reviews coming in and adding their own opinions to the articles. They do the same thing as the previous reviewer, but just furthering the checklist items that could be added or changed to improve the article over all. There were two added to this article, that were pointing out further "problems" in the article. Yet, in these there are a few debates on a few of the topics and one in particular about one of the pictures that were added.
Overall, this page has not received a GA tag due to many of the "check list" items never being finish and no explanation as to why. There are still many common problems, that would disqualify any other type of article. Because it is a medical article, it also has a lot of problems with accuracy of descriptions, missing information and parts missing content that needs to be added in a whole other section. The writers of the articles have made many attempts to finish the check lists given the article has over 500 edits, but still haven't covered a majority of the most important parts. Also hasn't kept in mind the initial WP:WIAGA guidlines.