After a bit of copyediting, the article is now at a generally acceptable prose standard. It complies with the indicated sections of MoS, except for one issue in the lead section: MoS says that an article this short should have a lead section of no more than two paragraphs. Since the first paragraph already goes into possible causes, I would just combine the second with the first. The section on "Conservative Treatment" strays into the style of a manual giving advice to patients/healthcare providers, and the voice should be changed there to be more encyclopedic.
The article has a reference section and cited sources. No signs of plagiarism from online sources that I can see. It's not required for GA, but the citations should really all be put into a standard format. Right now we have most providing given and surnames (Broaddus, V. Courtney), but the first source provides only initials for given names without periods (Huggins JT); I would change the first one to match all the others.
A deep issue raised by the sources I see relates to the very definition of the term "fibrothorax". The Huggins source says that fibrothorax is not synonymous with pleural fibrosis in general; rather, pleural fibrosis only becomes a fibrothorax when the visceral and parietal pleura become fused due to extensive fibrosis and thickening. This is already mentioned in the "Mechanism" section, but it needs to be clarified in the lead section. There are also several sections with disputable claims not currently supported by citations; I've marked them with "Citation needed" tags.
"Evidencereviewed.com" appears to be a self-published resource and doesn't seem to me like a reliable source by Wikipedia's standards. If we can find a better source stating that fibrothorax can lead to nail clubbing, then that point should also be expanded with the fact that clubbing is associated with a number of pulmonary diseases; otherwise, that point will need to be omitted.
In the first paragraph of "Causes", the Alhassan source does not in fact have anything to say about an association between fibrothorax and any of those medications, nor does it mention idiopathic cases; it's unclear why that source is included at all, but that section needs a source that actually contains the claims in the article. Likewise, in the second paragraph, the ScienceDirect citation is not to a source at all, but to a search! An actual source needs to be found for the claims in that paragraph. What chapter in "Clinical Respiratory Medicine" is being cited?
In the "Mechanism" seciton, a citation is needed to support the assertion that fibrothorax makes the lung vulnerable to collapse. In the "Microscopic mechanism" section, I can't tell what claim the Berkowitz source is supposed to be supporting; it's just thrown in mid-sentence, and the source itself is paywalled, so I can't read it and guess. The relevance needs to be made clear by moving the citation to a more appropriate place.
Done I removed the Berkowitz source since I was able to access it and it didn't seem to verify anything it was purported to support (there was no mention of fibers and scar tissue, etc. I also added a source that explicitly mentions the ergot alkaloids. The Alhassan source does mention many of the pertinent differentials and does mention SLE (which I added as a specific connective tissue disease cause of fibrothorax) so it does support that. I have also added that the Donath reference supports that lung collapse (atelectasis) is seen with fibrothorax. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 08:01, 7 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
In the "Diagnosis" section, the Muzio source doesn't say any of the things claimed before the citation; it's just a collection of radiological images. A source that actually states the things claimed needs to be substituted. The source "Fibrothorax — an overview" seems to be a link to a keyword search, rather than a document; that will need to be replaced with an actual source.
The "Symptoms" section should mention (from the Birdas source) that persistent, recurrent pleural effusions are a possible symptom, caused by the persistent cavity formed by the hardening pleura around the original fluid collection. The "Mechanism" section should clarify (from e.g. the Huggins and Birdas sources) that the undrained pleural effusion causes sustained inflammation of the pleura, which can then lead to fibrosis; currently the role of inflammation isn't mentioned. The "Prognosis" section discussing surgical outcomes should mention (from the Broaddus source) that the duration of the fibrothorax is not predictive of the outcome of decortication.
The article maintains an appropriate focus on the topic and doesn't stray into tangentially related matters. As for broad coverage, the sections recommended by WP:MEDMOS are there, but I have a couple of issues. I notice that the "Prognosis" section exclusively discusses the prognosis after decortication; before that conversation, there should be a paragraph discussing the outlook for conservative treatment, as well. One sentence is a good start toward this, but it still really needs more, e.g. the prognosis after pleurectomy.
I have been looking but really haven't found much discussing pleurectomy, especially not in high-quality sources. If you're able to point me in the direction of one or two, I would be happy to add more information about its role in fibrothorax. From what I can see, it appears to be a rare intervention for refractory cases and not much is written about it. It's possible a pulmonary medicine textbook discusses it somewhere but so far the texts I have seen haven't really done so. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:48, 25 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
Beyond that, the article is just quite short for a GA. It really needs greater depth of coverage, though I'm not sure whether I ought to require more to reach the GA standard. The Huggins source has quite a bit more detail about the histological view of pleural fibrosis, whereas this article currently just says that "it is unclear exactly how the inflammation results in fibrosis". After expanding these two sections, I suppose there will probably be enough here to meet the "broad coverage" standard.
The article is well illustrated by suitable and relevant images with appropriate licenses. I wonder if all of the images in the gallery are really contributing; for example, to my (untrained) eye, the "Fibrothorax caused by silicosis" and the "Bilateral fibrothorax caused by asbestos exposure" seem to show essentially the same thing. I think maybe three of these images could convey the same information as six are currently doing.
Done This has been addressed. I trimmed down the images some to avoid redundancy. Some of the photos are better than the others and are more illustrative and/or are better labeled. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 20:46, 5 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
An interesting topic, and generally clear coverage, but the article suffers from some pretty serious sourcing issues. Several bogus or irrelevant sources need to be replaced before this can think about becoming a GA. I'm putting it on hold for seven days to see if we get some movement from the nominator or a heroic intervention from another editor. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 23:44, 19 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
Bryan Rutherford, it looks like there was a heroic intervention several days ago by TylerDurden8823. When you get the chance, can you please check to see whether the issues you were concerned about have been adequately addressed, or if more work needs to be done (and where)? Given that not everything has been struck, I suspect that more work remains. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:40, 9 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
Yes, this page was up to date with the changes made by 6 December; TylerDurden8823 appears to be making more (much appreciated!) improvements as I write this, and I will update the review once the article stabilizes again. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 20:24, 9 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
With today's edits, the article is suddenly quite close to passing! There are a couple of remaining sourcing issues, and I'd like to see a greater breadth of coverage in the mechanism and prognosis, as indicated above, but most of my concerns have been addressed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 20:49, 9 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
I'm still working on it gradually but I haven't found too many good review articles on this particular topic. The Donath review has more information that I intend to incorporate into the article for greater breadth/coverage but that will take a little while. Bear with me. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 09:47, 11 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
I made some more revisions. Let me know if you think this is sufficient for GA or not (if not, I am willing to work on it more so I would ask you to keep it undecided and allow me to do more revisions before making a final decision if you don't think it's adequate yet). I'm still looking to see if I can find anything further about the role of pleurectomy but I really haven't found much to date. Otherwise, I think I have largely addressed the issues raised during this nomination. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:57, 25 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
Alright, I think it's there. I don't want to stray into demanding more than the GA standards merit, and the article has already been enormously improved. At this point I think it meets all the requirements and has become a Good Article. Many thanks to TylerDurden8823 for again saving the day! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 18:39, 26 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
Done I addressed the last few points here. This should be better. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 20:42, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
