The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Bibeyjj ( talk · contribs) 12:42, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi
Vaticidalprophet! I'm happy to take up the review of
17q12 microdeletion syndrome. I have just studied partial chromosome deletions at university, so this article is of particular interest to me. Thank you for all the work you have done on the article so far.
I will be using the "GABox" template to keep track of general progress. A comment on each criteria, and whether it has been passed or failed, will be put in relevant sections below. I will aim to respond to queries as fast as I can, although my availability of free time varies significantly through the week! Thanks! Bibeyjj ( talk) 12:42, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not) |
---|
|
Overall: |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
1a: Pass. The prose is clear and conveys information well. I personally have a preference for fewer compound sentences, but this is a personal preference, and just a suggestion for one or two longer sentences. The spelling is perfect. The grammer is perfect. Bibeyjj ( talk) 21:55, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
1b: Hold. Does not comply with WP:MEDORDER - "Presentation" would be better sectioned into "Signs and symptoms" and "Causes", "Prevalence would be better sectioned as "Epidemiology", and "Microduplication" can probably remain as it is. Complies with WP:LEAD. Complies with WP:LAYOUT. Complies with WP:WTW. WP:WAF does not apply as the article as about factual content. Complies with WP:Embedded list as no lists in the article, and none needed. Bibeyjj ( talk) 21:33, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
2a: Pass. There is a good coverage of references across the article. References are formatted correctly in accordance with WP:FNNR. There are a number of sentences which do not have an inline reference, even though the information is already available in a source - for example, in the "Diagnosis" section, reference 10 should be "reused" for the first sentence as well as the second. This is a minor issue. Bibeyjj ( talk) 22:15, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
2b: Hold. Reference 1-14 have been checked (more to be checked). 12 references are from reliable journals, while 2 are from a respected charity that deals with chromosomal disorders. None of the references are duplicated. There are a few issues with the verifiability of information in the Wikipedia article - these may be my own misreading of the sources, and are likely to be fixable. Bibeyjj ( talk) 08:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
2c: Hold. Most of the inline references well represent their reliable source. There are still some statements which remain without an inline reference. Moreover, with so many references not fully representing this source, some progress in references needs to be made before this criteria is passed. Bibeyjj ( talk) 09:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
2d: Pass. As far as I can tell, there is no plagiarism in the article. I have run the whole article through a plagiarism detector, which found nothing. The references used have not been plagiarised. Bibeyjj ( talk) 08:59, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
3a: Pass. All of the major aspects of the article are well-addressed. The article gives a good general overview of the subject. Bibeyjj ( talk) 09:06, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
3b: Pass. Most of the article gives excellent detail on the condition, particularly with regards to signs, symptoms, causes, and epidemiology. Bibeyjj ( talk) 09:15, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
4: Pass. Has a neutral tone and reference-based approach in dealing with a scientific topic. No controversial topics. Good wording and handling of the condition's relations to other conditions. Bibeyjj ( talk) 21:37, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
5: Pass. No edit conflicts in (fairly short) article history. Talk page checked for conflicts, and none have occurred. Bibeyjj ( talk) 13:12, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
6a: Pass. Both images available for free use (one in the public domain, one CreativeCommons). Bibeyjj ( talk) 13:14, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
6b: Pass. Both images are helpful. Both follow WP:CAP with appropriate captions. It is a shame that more images related to the syndrome don't exist. Would it be possible to include one more image of a related condition (made more likely by 17q12 microdeletion), such as autism or schizophrenia? Bibeyjj ( talk) 13:28, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi Vaticidalprophet! I just wanted to give an update following my first sweep of the article against the criteria. Overall, the article is doing well, with excellent spelling / punctuation / grammar, a good coverage of references, no plagiarism, a neutral scientific tone, no edit warring, and useful images. The main area for improvement before the article can pass is the verifiability of references. I hope that the references that have been brought into question can be backed up with citation from the references - I may be missing something from them! Thanks! Bibeyjj ( talk) 09:25, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Bibeyjj ( talk · contribs) 12:42, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi
Vaticidalprophet! I'm happy to take up the review of
17q12 microdeletion syndrome. I have just studied partial chromosome deletions at university, so this article is of particular interest to me. Thank you for all the work you have done on the article so far.
I will be using the "GABox" template to keep track of general progress. A comment on each criteria, and whether it has been passed or failed, will be put in relevant sections below. I will aim to respond to queries as fast as I can, although my availability of free time varies significantly through the week! Thanks! Bibeyjj ( talk) 12:42, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not) |
---|
|
Overall: |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
1a: Pass. The prose is clear and conveys information well. I personally have a preference for fewer compound sentences, but this is a personal preference, and just a suggestion for one or two longer sentences. The spelling is perfect. The grammer is perfect. Bibeyjj ( talk) 21:55, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
1b: Hold. Does not comply with WP:MEDORDER - "Presentation" would be better sectioned into "Signs and symptoms" and "Causes", "Prevalence would be better sectioned as "Epidemiology", and "Microduplication" can probably remain as it is. Complies with WP:LEAD. Complies with WP:LAYOUT. Complies with WP:WTW. WP:WAF does not apply as the article as about factual content. Complies with WP:Embedded list as no lists in the article, and none needed. Bibeyjj ( talk) 21:33, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
2a: Pass. There is a good coverage of references across the article. References are formatted correctly in accordance with WP:FNNR. There are a number of sentences which do not have an inline reference, even though the information is already available in a source - for example, in the "Diagnosis" section, reference 10 should be "reused" for the first sentence as well as the second. This is a minor issue. Bibeyjj ( talk) 22:15, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
2b: Hold. Reference 1-14 have been checked (more to be checked). 12 references are from reliable journals, while 2 are from a respected charity that deals with chromosomal disorders. None of the references are duplicated. There are a few issues with the verifiability of information in the Wikipedia article - these may be my own misreading of the sources, and are likely to be fixable. Bibeyjj ( talk) 08:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
2c: Hold. Most of the inline references well represent their reliable source. There are still some statements which remain without an inline reference. Moreover, with so many references not fully representing this source, some progress in references needs to be made before this criteria is passed. Bibeyjj ( talk) 09:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
2d: Pass. As far as I can tell, there is no plagiarism in the article. I have run the whole article through a plagiarism detector, which found nothing. The references used have not been plagiarised. Bibeyjj ( talk) 08:59, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
3a: Pass. All of the major aspects of the article are well-addressed. The article gives a good general overview of the subject. Bibeyjj ( talk) 09:06, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
3b: Pass. Most of the article gives excellent detail on the condition, particularly with regards to signs, symptoms, causes, and epidemiology. Bibeyjj ( talk) 09:15, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
4: Pass. Has a neutral tone and reference-based approach in dealing with a scientific topic. No controversial topics. Good wording and handling of the condition's relations to other conditions. Bibeyjj ( talk) 21:37, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
5: Pass. No edit conflicts in (fairly short) article history. Talk page checked for conflicts, and none have occurred. Bibeyjj ( talk) 13:12, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
6a: Pass. Both images available for free use (one in the public domain, one CreativeCommons). Bibeyjj ( talk) 13:14, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
6b: Pass. Both images are helpful. Both follow WP:CAP with appropriate captions. It is a shame that more images related to the syndrome don't exist. Would it be possible to include one more image of a related condition (made more likely by 17q12 microdeletion), such as autism or schizophrenia? Bibeyjj ( talk) 13:28, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi Vaticidalprophet! I just wanted to give an update following my first sweep of the article against the criteria. Overall, the article is doing well, with excellent spelling / punctuation / grammar, a good coverage of references, no plagiarism, a neutral scientific tone, no edit warring, and useful images. The main area for improvement before the article can pass is the verifiability of references. I hope that the references that have been brought into question can be backed up with citation from the references - I may be missing something from them! Thanks! Bibeyjj ( talk) 09:25, 16 February 2021 (UTC)