Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Leptospirosis/archive2

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 17 March 2020 [1].

Leptospirosis edit

Nominator(s): Cerevisae (talk) 12:51, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the general view of a neglected tropical disease named leptospirosis. Everything has been done to make sure the article reaches the FA status. Making the article featured will help more people to understand this disease and help to spread awareness. Thank you.Cerevisae (talk) 12:51, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SG edit

MOS:CAPTIONS for starters.
Citation style is not consistent.
This article is greatly improved from its first appearance at FAC. but, There are prose issues evident throughout, suggesting the need for an independent copyedit. I strongly encourage the nominator to seek collaborators, and to engage with WT:MED to improve the article before approaching FAC. Samples:

Efforts to prevent the disease include protective equipment ... protective equipment are not "efforts".
Overuse of however throughout, also check subsequently.

WP:MOSNUM issues, eg, and six to 20 micrometers long. ...

More to come, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:14, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and suggest withdrawal after seeing this IP edit from Penn State, which scratches the surface of the level of problems (without even looking at sourcing). User:Cerevisae I am sorry to have to suggest twice now that you should withdraw this article from FAC, but medical FAs are possibly the hardest to write of all topics on Wikipedia, and you should have engaged WPMED early on and planned for sustained involvement and copyediting before nominating. Further, bringing this forward during the COVID-19 pandemic practically assures that few medical editors will have enough time to devote to this now. I would hope not to see this article back at FAC until several experienced medical FA writers say it is ready, and that could be quite some time away given how busy everyone is on COVID. (I hope you won't be distracted by the idea below that you have to cite specific page numbers on journal articles; that is fiction, and focusing on minor issues like that is a detraction from the overall level of unpreparedness for FAC of this article.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:16, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild - leaning oppose edit

Cerevisae, I note that this is the first article you have nominated for FA. Have you followed the advice
Editors considering their first nomination, and any subsequent nomination before their first FA promotion, are strongly advised to seek the involvement of a mentor, to assist in the preparation and processing of the nomination.
at the head of the FAC page? I do not wish to depress you with a long list of fairly basic points; nor should I need to at FAC. Articles are supposed to arrive here needing only minor polishing. No individual point that I have found in this article is fatal, but cumulatively they indicate a good, solid article which does not have prose yet ready for FAC. A rapid and thorough copy edit may yet save this nomination so far as I am concerned; otherwise I recommend withdrawal to work with someone who understands what is required of FACs - a list of volunteers is here - and/or a copy edit by GoCE. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:28, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Buidhe

FA mentorship is a mixed bag; I didn't have success with it myself. The nominator has gone to great effort to improve the article since the last nomination and it went through a recent copyedit at WP:GOCE, so if there are prose/MOS issues that were missed, perhaps they should be identified and offered as feedback to the copyeditor? Personally, I don't think this article is too far off from FAC criteria, but page numbers are important for WP:V. b uidhe 20:24, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Journal citations do not require page numbers; books do. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:29, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I disagree. Anything that the writers of the article can do to improve ability to check the information is invaluable to source reviewers. If it's just a really brief article that's one thing but it's not clear how long these articles are. b uidhe 20:32, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no requirement to specify page numbers on journal citations; writing a medical FA is hard enough, we don't need to make it even harder, or confuse new nominators. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:44, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:Citing sources#What information to include: "Citations for journal articles typically include ... volume number, issue number, and page numbers". Gog the Mild (talk) 21:09, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestion. I tried to find a mentor once but he said he was busy with other things. I will try to search for other mentors.Cerevisae (talk) 23:44, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gog, yes page numbers (plural) are included, as a range. Anyone who has not read the entire journal article shouldn’t be citing it at all. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:42, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - This reads like my old, scribbled lecture notes. The prose does not flow; the text is just one short sentence after another. It fails our first criterion "well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard". Graham Beards (talk) 14:09, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:17, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Ealdgyth (talk) 16:02, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.