GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Tom (LT) ( talk · contribs) 23:37, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Wow, what an article @
Astroketh, certainly looks good at first glance. Thanks for your edits to this article to bring it to this point. I've reviewed
a number of medical and non medical articles and will be reviewing this article. I will review against the
6 good article criteria. On first glance I highly doubt there will be any major problems, this article looks appropriately cited, imaged, and comprehensive. I will spend a few days reading the article and then post a review. --
Tom (LT) (
talk) 23:37, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Hey @ Tom (LT) thank you for reviewing this article, I have started to work on your comments. -- Astroketh ( talk) 01:42, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi @ Tom (LT) yes that would be helpful. I have started to work on your comments.-- Astroketh ( talk) 06:50, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | For the most part, highly understandable. See commentary below for a few issues. | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | ||
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | Several citations are older than recommended by the style guidelines (see WP:MEDRS), which I think is both achievable and important for a fairly common cancer like bladder cancer. Many citations are missing date of publication, which is important to help assess the currency of sources. | |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | ||
2c. it contains no original research. | ||
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Earwig's copyvio positives are general terms only. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Absolutely | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | ||
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | ||
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | ||
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | ||
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Many captions are lacking in some introductory information for general readers, or excessively complex. See below. | |
7. Overall assessment. |
Tom (LT), it doesn't appear that any action has been taken to address the issues, though bots coming through have made minor modifications to three of the references since your review. Nominator Astroketh has made only six edits in 2020: one in February, four on March 13, and the most recent on April 24, two days prior to the review being open. If Astroketh doesn't return in the next several days, probably the thing to do is to close the nomination as unsuccessful. They can always renominate once they've returned and worked on the issues you've noted above. BlueMoonset ( talk) 17:12, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Tom (LT) ( talk · contribs) 23:37, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Wow, what an article @
Astroketh, certainly looks good at first glance. Thanks for your edits to this article to bring it to this point. I've reviewed
a number of medical and non medical articles and will be reviewing this article. I will review against the
6 good article criteria. On first glance I highly doubt there will be any major problems, this article looks appropriately cited, imaged, and comprehensive. I will spend a few days reading the article and then post a review. --
Tom (LT) (
talk) 23:37, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Hey @ Tom (LT) thank you for reviewing this article, I have started to work on your comments. -- Astroketh ( talk) 01:42, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi @ Tom (LT) yes that would be helpful. I have started to work on your comments.-- Astroketh ( talk) 06:50, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | For the most part, highly understandable. See commentary below for a few issues. | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | ||
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | Several citations are older than recommended by the style guidelines (see WP:MEDRS), which I think is both achievable and important for a fairly common cancer like bladder cancer. Many citations are missing date of publication, which is important to help assess the currency of sources. | |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | ||
2c. it contains no original research. | ||
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Earwig's copyvio positives are general terms only. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Absolutely | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | ||
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | ||
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | ||
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | ||
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Many captions are lacking in some introductory information for general readers, or excessively complex. See below. | |
7. Overall assessment. |
Tom (LT), it doesn't appear that any action has been taken to address the issues, though bots coming through have made minor modifications to three of the references since your review. Nominator Astroketh has made only six edits in 2020: one in February, four on March 13, and the most recent on April 24, two days prior to the review being open. If Astroketh doesn't return in the next several days, probably the thing to do is to close the nomination as unsuccessful. They can always renominate once they've returned and worked on the issues you've noted above. BlueMoonset ( talk) 17:12, 23 May 2020 (UTC)