Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Acute myeloid leukemia

Acute myeloid leukemia

Self-nomination: This article has had a peer review and I've tried to address the suggestions. I think it's well-referenced and fairly complete, without exceeding length guidelines. Hopefully it strikes a balance between lay-person-friendly and technically detailed. MastCell 18:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support - I support this article. Explains very well what happends and why. KYMYK 11:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support from self-nominator; I guess that goes without saying. MastCell 15:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very detailed, well written and informative. Tarret 21:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Object~~; not enough citations. Entire level two subsections are unreferenced, and many specific facts throughout lack citations. See HIV (a current FAC; see below). --Spangineer^es (háblame) 21:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What specifically do you want to see references for? I don't think we should add more references just to get the number of references up, but if there is anything that needs a reference, we can probably find one. --WS 22:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I actually agree that the article could be better referenced. I've gone back and added references to some of the weaker sections; please take another look, Spangineer, and see if I've addressed your objections. Of course, as WS pointed out, the tradeoff is that the article is now over the suggested size limit. MastCell 23:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've noted a few more places, but this is much better. The size limit is largely irrelevant—pretty much everyone agrees that only prose should be counted in that. At this point, with more and more people having fast internet connections, the bigger issue is the reader's attention span, and adding more references doesn't hurt that. I'm not shooting for a set number of citations either—I just feel that if there are significant points of an article that are not explicitly referenced, then something is missing. That's true of all articles, but especially medical/scientific articles. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 05:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've gone through the "fact" tags and added references... what do you think? MastCell 05:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support; nice work. The prose could be improved in spots, but overall this is solid. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 21:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support this was good when it went to peer review and it's improved since. I'd still like to see more on current research but don't think it's a critical addition. Opabinia regalis 02:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. Sure, it could use more, but I personally think that article has enough citations. —Jared Hunt September 9, 2006, 03:59 (UTC)
Strong Support - great work! NCurse _work 08:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support very good read. Rama's arrow 21:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the prognosis section of the article dones't seem very logical - it discusses cure rates, before it describes key prognostic factors. Single sentences should be merged into pargraphs. All the other medicine articles I remember reviewing (like CF) have history at the end of the article - is there a suggested Medicine order that the article should follow?--Peta 23:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've rearranged the "Prognosis" section per your comments, which make a lot of sense. As far as the "History" section, I've always thought it makes sense up front (this is how most textbook entries on diseases are written), but if there's a style guideline suggesting it belongs at the end, that would be fine. MastCell 01:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]