Talk:Desquamative interstitial pneumonia
Desquamative interstitial pneumonia 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. Review: October 23, 2024. (Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Desquamative interstitial pneumonia.
|
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Desquamative interstitial pneumonia/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: IntentionallyDense (talk · contribs) 14:18, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Nub098765 (talk · contribs) 08:55, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
Hey, it's one of those medical articles that never get reviewed! I'll step in for those who won't. Let it be known that I'm not an expert at all, but I'll try my best to understand... this. Nub098765 (talk) 08:55, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- Let me know if you have any questions! IntentionallyDense (talk) 16:53, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
Alright. Time to do this.
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. | Now I'm no expert in medical terminology or conventions, so feel free to ignore me if I erroneously correct something.
Lead
Signs and symptoms
Causes
Diagnosis
Treatment
Outlook
Epidemiology
History
| |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Seems formatted well-enough. However, I have a comment: some sections, such as "History" and "Epidemiology," are quite short. If possible, these could be combined or expanded to create a more visually balanced article. However, if more content is not available, leaving them as-is is fine. Just a small caveat
| |
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | Respect for using {{sfn}}. The reference section is formatted well. Everything appears neat and professional. | |
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). | I commend the use of high-quality, reliable sources. Every claim that could reasonably be challenged is properly cited, and there are no uncited passages. Excellent work here. | |
2c. it contains no original research. | See my spotcheck below. | |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Earwig says "violation unlikely." | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | The article covers the key aspects of DIP well, given the limited information available on the subject. | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | With under 1,000 words, there isn’t much room to stray off-topic, and the article remains tightly focused throughout. | |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | The article presents information fairly and neutrally, without editorial bias. No weasel words or WP:WTW. Excellent adherence to neutrality principles. | |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | Hah. Who's editing medical articles, especially this one? Very stable. | |
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. | One image, seems to be licensed correctly. | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Infobox image shows a case of desquamative interstitial pneumonia, and its caption reflects its significance. | |
7. Overall assessment. | See my comments above. |
Spotcheck
[edit]Source #s are of the Sources section below the sfns.
- Source 1 verifies the information it is citing.
- Source 2 ditto.
- Source 4 ditto.
- Source 7 ditto.
- Source 9 ditto.
- Source 11 ditto.
AGF on the sources I cannot access. Based on the paraphrasing I reviewed, the article stays faithful to the sources. There is no indication of plagiarism or other issues. Nice job. I see nothing wrong with this sourcing.
Verdict
[edit]With a few tweaks to the prose, this article is ready for GA status. The information is well-sourced, accurate, and easy to understand for both medical and non-medical readers. Great job simplifying a complex topic without sacrificing detail! I look forward to seeing the final revisions. I'll put this on hold for, say, one week (but I suspect you won't need that long) to resolve the issues or comment on them. Thanksya, Nub098765 (talk) 06:24, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Nub098765 I got back to you on all of your suggestions. Thank you for taking the time to do this review, especially on such a foreign topic as I know medical content is a tough topic. Your prose suggestions are amazing and I envy your writing skills. IntentionallyDense (talk) 20:00, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you! I envy your skills in the medical field of Wikipedia. Your reasons for rejecting are acceptable, and with another read-over, I see no more errors. also, small caveat in my review, for some reason, with one of the suggestions, I pasted my sentence twice instead of yours once, oops! But you seemed to take it well haha
- I think this article is ready to pass GA. Good job, and I wish you luck on your future Wikipedia endeavors! Nub098765 (talk) 22:09, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you! IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:16, 23 October 2024 (UTC)