Beck鈥揊ahrner syndrome has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
A
fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
March 18, 2024. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that only approximately 50 individuals have been diagnosed with
Beck鈥揊ahrner syndrome? | |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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 |
Reviewer: Fritzmann2002聽( talk 路 contribs) 18:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Good afternoon
Arp 142, I will be reviewing
Beck鈥揊ahrner syndrome today. Unfortunately, the article is a long way from meeting one of the
Good article criteria, and for that reason is not ready to become a Good Article at this time. I am referring in particular to criterion 1a: "the prose is clear, concise, and
understandable to an appropriately broad audience". Currently, the article is highly technical and difficult to read. Additionally, there are several sentences which are incomplete or are structured in a way that is grammatically incorrect. Wikipedia, and Good Articles in particular, should be written for a lay audience; that is, for those who do not understand the jargon of the specific field that is being written about. In particular, the long lists of symptoms and syndromes, the highly complex description of the genetics of the disorder, and the use of shorthand like "differential" make the article inaccessible to a general audience. Additionally, the final section on management is written in a manner that is nonconforming to Wikipedia's encyclopedic style, instead leaning towards the style of a how-to guide or a treatment handbook.
I hope that these brief comments give you a direction in which to continue improving and editing the article. It is a great start so far and gives solid information on a new and complicated syndrome! This is valuable material that I am sure many people are glad you have taken the time to compile. I hope that you will continue to put your knowledge and expertise to use and keep improving this article or others. If you have any questions or would like more comprehensive input on how to improve the article, or if you would like another review later once it has been improved, please don't hesitate to drop me a line on my talk page. I'm happy to help in any capacity that I can. Fritzmann ( message me) 18:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
@ Strange Orange: here are two Good Articles with a similar topic to this one. I recommend looking at them for inspiration on writing style and to see if you have covered everything (satisfying the "Broad" criterion).
Fritzmann ( message me) 20:29, 1 February 2024 (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 |
Reviewer: Ajpolino聽( talk 路 contribs) 13:57, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi
Strange Orange, a very belated welcome to Wikipedia! I'm thrilled to see a "new" editor interested in medical topics. I'll be happy to talk on this review, and will get through it as quickly as I can. I'll list concerns related to the six
good article criteria below.
Ajpolino (
talk) 13:57, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
1. Well-written
with neuroimaging studies occasionally revealing non-specific findingsclearer (without making it too much longer)? Right now I suspect it would be meaningless to most readers.
to identify mutations or variants...- "Mutations" vs. "variants" - language is evolving here, and I understand folks make a distinction between these two terms in various ways. Is there a distinction you're trying to make here? If not, you can just cut "or variants" (since you use "mutation" throughout).
They can occur"de novo from new" is redundant.de novofrom new genetic mutations...
2. Verifiable
while ear involvement may result in hearing lossis supported? Is it just patient 1 from Seyama, et al.? If so, I'm not sure what Levy, et al. is doing for this sentence.
The signs and symptoms may vary among individuals due to differences in gene expression and partial loss of gene functiondirectly supported by the source? If it's intended to be kind of a WP:BLUESKY statement, I can probably get behind that as well.
3. Broad in its coverage
4. Neutral
5. Stable
6. Illustrated
That's all for me! The article is in great shape. Thank you for the interesting read. If you could just clarify a few things (listed above) I think we can wrap this up as a "pass". Best, Ajpolino ( talk) 18:31, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
Rjjiii聽
talk聽21:12, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Improved to Good Article status by Strange聽Orange聽( talk). Self-nominated at 05:03, 18 February 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Beck鈥揊ahrner syndrome; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
General eligibility:
Policy compliance:
Hook eligibility:
QPQ: Done. |
Beck鈥揊ahrner syndrome has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
A
fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
March 18, 2024. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that only approximately 50 individuals have been diagnosed with
Beck鈥揊ahrner syndrome? | |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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 |
Reviewer: Fritzmann2002聽( talk 路 contribs) 18:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Good afternoon
Arp 142, I will be reviewing
Beck鈥揊ahrner syndrome today. Unfortunately, the article is a long way from meeting one of the
Good article criteria, and for that reason is not ready to become a Good Article at this time. I am referring in particular to criterion 1a: "the prose is clear, concise, and
understandable to an appropriately broad audience". Currently, the article is highly technical and difficult to read. Additionally, there are several sentences which are incomplete or are structured in a way that is grammatically incorrect. Wikipedia, and Good Articles in particular, should be written for a lay audience; that is, for those who do not understand the jargon of the specific field that is being written about. In particular, the long lists of symptoms and syndromes, the highly complex description of the genetics of the disorder, and the use of shorthand like "differential" make the article inaccessible to a general audience. Additionally, the final section on management is written in a manner that is nonconforming to Wikipedia's encyclopedic style, instead leaning towards the style of a how-to guide or a treatment handbook.
I hope that these brief comments give you a direction in which to continue improving and editing the article. It is a great start so far and gives solid information on a new and complicated syndrome! This is valuable material that I am sure many people are glad you have taken the time to compile. I hope that you will continue to put your knowledge and expertise to use and keep improving this article or others. If you have any questions or would like more comprehensive input on how to improve the article, or if you would like another review later once it has been improved, please don't hesitate to drop me a line on my talk page. I'm happy to help in any capacity that I can. Fritzmann ( message me) 18:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
@ Strange Orange: here are two Good Articles with a similar topic to this one. I recommend looking at them for inspiration on writing style and to see if you have covered everything (satisfying the "Broad" criterion).
Fritzmann ( message me) 20:29, 1 February 2024 (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 |
Reviewer: Ajpolino聽( talk 路 contribs) 13:57, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi
Strange Orange, a very belated welcome to Wikipedia! I'm thrilled to see a "new" editor interested in medical topics. I'll be happy to talk on this review, and will get through it as quickly as I can. I'll list concerns related to the six
good article criteria below.
Ajpolino (
talk) 13:57, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
1. Well-written
with neuroimaging studies occasionally revealing non-specific findingsclearer (without making it too much longer)? Right now I suspect it would be meaningless to most readers.
to identify mutations or variants...- "Mutations" vs. "variants" - language is evolving here, and I understand folks make a distinction between these two terms in various ways. Is there a distinction you're trying to make here? If not, you can just cut "or variants" (since you use "mutation" throughout).
They can occur"de novo from new" is redundant.de novofrom new genetic mutations...
2. Verifiable
while ear involvement may result in hearing lossis supported? Is it just patient 1 from Seyama, et al.? If so, I'm not sure what Levy, et al. is doing for this sentence.
The signs and symptoms may vary among individuals due to differences in gene expression and partial loss of gene functiondirectly supported by the source? If it's intended to be kind of a WP:BLUESKY statement, I can probably get behind that as well.
3. Broad in its coverage
4. Neutral
5. Stable
6. Illustrated
That's all for me! The article is in great shape. Thank you for the interesting read. If you could just clarify a few things (listed above) I think we can wrap this up as a "pass". Best, Ajpolino ( talk) 18:31, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
Rjjiii聽
talk聽21:12, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Improved to Good Article status by Strange聽Orange聽( talk). Self-nominated at 05:03, 18 February 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Beck鈥揊ahrner syndrome; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
General eligibility:
Policy compliance:
Hook eligibility:
QPQ: Done. |