Talk:Adrenal crisis/GA1
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Just-a-can-of-beans (talk · contribs) 00:26, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I will review this article. This is a large and important topic, so forgive me if this takes a few days to complete. Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 00:29, 1 January 2024 (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. | Article needs some copyediting. I took care of a quick issue I saw, but I think a pass through some outside grammar checking software might be beneficial.
More concerning, though, is that there are sections of confusing wordage. These areas are not necessarily inaccurate, but which require a reader to pause and figure out what you are trying to say. Allow me to present an example: "Since cortisol has a 90-minute half-life in the blood, tissues deplete several hours following cortisol deprivation." When I first read this, it didn't make sense to me. I thought, wait, why are they depleting for several hours? Is that a typo? Even now, I am only "pretty sure" I know what you mean - that after the point at which deprivation began, if it were all cut off at once, it takes several hours for tissue effects to manifest due to the half-life of 90 minutes. This meaning, if it is correct, is not clear, and it obscures the message - especially for a lay person who may read this page without any understanding of what a half-life is. Some sections are better than others regarding this confusing language. For example, the mechanism section reads much less smoothly than the Prevention section, which I think is excellent for both medical professionals and for patients who might be looking at this page to figure out the weird word their doctor said. I would request a rewrite (for better readability) of these sections because they are confusing and/or have issues with clear and concise prose:
And these sections because they are too technical for a broad audience:
01:26, 1 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | The lead section is too long. Please cut this down to a "nutshell" per WP:LEAD - it will probably need to be less than 1/2 of its current length. The information is good, so maybe try to redistribute less-crucial things or details to later sections of the page? 01:31, 1 January 2024 (UTC) |
| 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. | Excellent work making sure that everything is cited appropriately. And what a reflist. You've sure made my work cut out for me as I begin to verify these.01:36, 1 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
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). | Some inline citations do not link to sources which directly confirm the information in that line. They are all high-quality sources, and I have not been able to identify anything I know to be inaccurate, but I suspect you may have intermixed knowledge of different sources and/or personal expertise and not remembered exactly which one said something. Regardless, the net result is the same: there are statements which are not supported by sources. In particular, I could not find anything in Coutinho AE, Chapman KE (March 2011) which supported the statements this study was used to cite in the Mechanism section. There was another example (DeVile, C. J.; Stanhope, R. (1997)) which did not directly support the claim about seizures it was used as an inline citation for in the Children section, and I was going to let this one pass because the study authors simply avoided using the term while speaking of grave neurological consequences and hypoglycemia.
Because I lack the time to search through all of your extensive inline citations, and I have already found several problems, I will not do that for now. The mismatch between inline citations and statements they are intended to support is a deal-breaker for me on this review, but I will still complete the rest of the template to the best of my ability. Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 01:58, 1 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
2c. it contains no original research. | 02:16, 1 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | 02:16, 1 January 2024 (UTC) |
| 3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
|
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | The Causes section could use some more information. You refer to "any of the conditions that can cause adrenal insufficiency" earlier in the page, but the Causes section doesn't actually discuss these. Even a bulleted list would be appropriate here.
Otherwise, everything is perfect. 02:16, 1 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | I believe the level of detail you have in the article overall is great. However, the lead section could do with less, as mentioned previously
02:16, 1 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | Neutrality is great. Encyclopedic tone is mostly consistent, but there are several points where you are overly verbose (this partially goes back to 1a). Neutrality itself, though, is excellent. If I had one nitpick, it would be that your final paragraph and sentence of the Causes section (before Risk Factors) seems unprofessional.02:16, 1 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | 02:16, 1 January 2024 (UTC) |
| 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. | 01:26, 1 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | The saline bag is probably unnecessary, but this is a very minor nitpick. 01:26, 1 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
7. Overall assessment. | Fail, per aboveJust-a-can-of-beans (talk) 01:58, 1 January 2024 (UTC) |
If you wish to act on anything listed in this table before I complete the rest of the review, please add a comment here informing me what you have changed so that I can examine the changes.Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 01:26, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Typing this after I've done the reference checks that made me decide to fail the article - I still have sections 2c through 5 to complete, and I will do them now, to hopefully add feedback before you resubmit later Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 02:02, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Just-a-can-of-beans Thank you so much for the review. I had a lot sources open and I most likely confused some of my sources. I'm going to go through and check every source and properly track down where I got that exact info! My writing skills are rough, I often have a hard time making my sentences sound fluid if that makes sense. It's something I'm trying to work on. I will read through it again and try to make things more fluid! I really appreciate how detailed your response was! This review will really help me with my overall writing of Wikipedia pages. I'm going to focus on fixing up what you wrote and then maybe try again for a GA status once I've really dissected this page and made it perfect! Thank you again! CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 21:49, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- You're very welcome. And I'm glad you're taking this path, because in terms of information and content, this page is exceptional. Keep up the good work :) Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 21:51, 1 January 2024 (UTC)