Talk:Rumination syndrome/GA1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I'll be conducting the GA review. Strombollii (talk) 03:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Awesome... I've literally been checking the GAR page twice a day since I nominated this. Hope you enjoy reading it. I've managed to find most of the sourced journal entries online freely. If you have any questions you may as well direct them straight to me since nobody else has really contributed to this one beyond minor fixes. Cheers - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 05:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I'll do my best to get it up speedily. Strombollii (talk) 15:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Just a few stylistic concerns:

  • Why the bulleted list under Diagnosis?
  • Citations in the lead: Not a huge deal, and very subjective, but are they necessary? The lead should simply state facts that are substantiated and cited within the article itself. Ergo, citations within the introduction should be unnecessary. With that said, they're also not prohibited under WP: MOS or WP:MEDMOS.
  • External links section needs descriptions. (from PR)
  • Reference 13 needs to be formatted. (from PR)
  • Link for 13 is also broken, can't access data.

Strombollii (talk) 01:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

If you don't mind me asking, what do you mean by "from PR"?
I'll fix the others up next time I'm on. I think some of the citations (Particularly the ones for "severely under-diagnosed") are necessary to back up claims that some may see as NPOV otherwise - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 02:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, "from PR" was more for me, meaning "from Peer Review". And if you can find a source that explicitly states that it is under-diagnosed, then you don't actually need such a huge list. Strombollii (talk) 03:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
K, ref 13 is formatted... Not sure why you can't access it though, as it comes up fine for me on several different computers. As for the lead thing, all the citations explicitly state that it is "under diagnosed". None of them use the word 'severely', so I have justified that choice in wording with the countless journals that say "Its under diagnosed, doctors needs more awareness of this, and the general public needs more awareness of this." If I can keep 'severely' without that many citations than I'll remove the citations from the lead all-together. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 18:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
It's probably my awful wifi here at school. Sorry about that. But I have misgivings using a term such a "severely", which is blatantly subjective. There's no problem with saying that the disease is under-diagnosed or rarely seen as a result of lack of knowledge (given, of course, that said statements are echoed in the literature); but to derive "severely" from a multitude of papers that do not, in fact, say "severely," is a violation of WP: NPOV. Strombollii (talk) 21:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I doubt any respected medical journal would ever use the word severely. If they use other words that mean essentially the same thing, can I use severely?.. Cause most of the words in the article aren't word-for-word the words used the journals (Since most of them contain terminology that are at a level above your average readers comprehension). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 00:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
But if no respected medical journal would use the word "severely", why should it be used on Wikipedia? It's subjective. Strombollii (talk) 00:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I see what you mean by that... A couple studies use the word "very", while some others state things such as "under-recognized condition" and "[there is] insufficient awareness [of the syndrome]". Could you perhaps suggest an alternative wording? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 00:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Maybe just state that it's an under-recognized or under-diagnosed condition? Strombollii (talk) 01:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
K. Severely is out, and under-recognised has been added as a new sentence in the lead. I also took ut most of the citations from the lead... The few that remain are all in that group of 7. Aside from the first 2 of those 7, they are only referenced at that point of the article and so I will soon find spots to use them and move them down. External links have had descriptions added to them (Which you may wish to truncate or such because I wasn't sure what would be an acceptable description) - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 01:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written
    A. Prose quality: Green tickY
    B. MoS compliance: Green tickY
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources: Green tickY
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: Green tickY
    So many citations in the lead are a bit unnecessary, but it's not explicitly prohibited by WP: MEDMOS, so it's a bit of a moot point.
    C. No original research: Green tickY
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects: Green tickY
    B. Focused: Green tickY
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias: Green tickY
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc: Green tickY
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: Green tickY
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: Green tickY
    Images could be larger, so that graphs and data can be more easily accessed.
    More images would also be nice, but that's not a GA requirement. For an FA attempt, an anatomical diagram should be included.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
Awesome!! next up is FA. I think I will be very hard pressed to find an anatomical diagram... Might be able to make one but there's litting information regarding that. I'm guessing that fixing the diagnosis paragraph would also be a requirement, but I'll be doing that shortly anyways. Thank you very much : ) - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 16:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Just thought I'd let you know, since I don't know what it needs to fix it, the GA Review template on the talk page says "Error: Invalid date" - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 16:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)