Talk:Andersen–Tawil syndrome

Andersen–Tawil 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.
Review: September 16, 2019. (Reviewed version).

Physiology Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physiology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysiologyWikipedia:WikiProject PhysiologyTemplate:WikiProject PhysiologyPhysiology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
	This article has not yet been associated with a particular area.

Medicine: Cardiology / Genetics Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Cardiology task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Medical genetics task force.

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 Andersen–Tawil syndrome.

PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles)
The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine.
Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

GA Review

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

This review is transcluded from Talk:Andersen–Tawil syndrome/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Canada Hky (talk · contribs) 00:02, 15 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hello! I am happy to review this article for GA status. I will go through and make some comments as I read, and then will run through the checklist at the end, to make sure I haven't missed anything. Canada Hky (talk) 00:02, 15 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Initial comments

No copyvio issues.
Images all look good.
In the lead - can you explicitly call out the triad of diagnostic findings? The last sentence refers to the triad, but I had to go back and piece together what it was - something similar to the first sentence of the signs and symptoms section. Done
Sub out "mutation" for "variant" or "pathogenic variant". Done
In the "Cause" section, "mutation" is linked well after its first usage - is there a specific reason for this decision? Done
For the table in the "Cause" section - while the abbreviation 'ATS' is pretty easy to guess - it isn't defined in the article. Done
In the "Diagnosis" section - the text says "if 2/3 criteria are met", but there are 4 different criteria listed. Done
There is inconsistency between "long qt syndrome" and "Long QT syndrome" - I would suggest the former, as it isn't a proper noun, but it should definitely be consistent. Done
Reference 12 should have an access date. Done

I will update if I find anything else. Please let me know if there are any questions. I am going to put the article on hold for now. If you think you will need more than the standard 7 days, just let me know. Canada Hky (talk) 00:23, 15 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Canada Hky. I actioned all the points you have raised above - thanks for spotting those errors. Anything else? PeaBrainC (talk) 09:02, 16 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Checklist

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Thanks for the opportunity to review this article. It was easy to read, focused and comprehensive!
Pass/Fail:

Add topic