Talk:Hepatitis C/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Muboshgu (talk · contribs) 15:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC) I'll be on vacation until the 8th (just checking in on the Wiki in a spare moment), so I won't be able to conduct the review for a few days. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   1a: Prose can be tightened in a few places. "For those that do manifest symptoms, they are in general mild and vague, including a decreased appetite, fatigue, nausea, muscle or joint pains, and weight loss" - here, the "they" is vague (are we talking about the infected individuals or the symptoms?). "The infection resolves spontaneously in 10-50% of cases being more likely in those who are young and females" is clumsy. "About 80% of those exposed to the virus develop a chronic infection,[6] with most experiencing minimal or no symptoms during the initial few decades of the infection[7] although chronic hepatitis C can be associated with fatigue.[8]" is a bit of a run-on sentence and should be broken in two. There are a few other places to improve prose, in addition to those. I'm not going to list them all, but a thorough review of the prose would be beneficial. Also, I just found a disambiguation link (now tagged in the article). I don't know where it's supposed to go, but it needs to be corrected.
   1b: Solid lead overall, which summarizes the entire article. No words to watch, fiction not applicable (though it would be nice if this was a fiction article), nor is lists. Regarding layout, however, some work needs to be done. One-sentence paragraphs are frowned upon, and this article has one-sentence sections. Those should either be expanded or merged as appropriate.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   This is my first review involving WP:SCG. The article cites many sources, in many places where appropriate. Many of these sources come from high quality journals, and most of them were published in the last few years. There doesn't seem to be any original research here. However, the reference titled "Hepatitis Drug-Maker Complaints Reviewed" is a dead link and that needs to be replaced.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Most major aspects are covered. Regarding focus, I think the article's focus suffers due to some of the one-sentence sections I mentioned earlier. It would help to cover the major aspect of HCV in society/culture if that section were expanded.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   No bias here.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No edit warring here.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   All images are appropriate and have captions.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   This is a well-written article that can meet GA standards with a little bit of work, as I outlined above. I'll put the article on hold for a week to allow for improvement (longer if work is in progress).

Reply

First of all many thanks for taking on this GAN.

• With respect to the disambig link. Pegylated interferon alpha is not really a disambig. I have thus removed the disambig tag from it as it is really a stub for a class of meds.
• I have added to the two section in question.
• I will see if I can get someone who knows prose to improve this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• Well, pegylated interferon alpha may be the proper medical term, but on Wikipedia, Pegylated interferon alpha is a disambiguation page, and GA's can't link to a disambiguation page, so something has to give there. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes it is no longer a disambig as the term does not mean multiple things.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay. That article could use some improvement, though that has nothing to do with this GA review. I'll take a look at it and see if I can do some of the copy editing and let you know where we stand. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Source #48, "Chapter 4 — Hepatitis, Viral, Type C — Yellow Book, CDC Health Information for International Travel 2008" comes up as not found. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:10, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

thanks and fixed.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Great. I'm done with the copy editing, so I'll pass this on criterias 1 and 2 (except for 2b). I feel you've done enough to expand the article to meet 3a, which also took care of 3b. Where 2b comes in is that I added a citation needed tag in the Epidemiology section for a statement I feel needs to be sourced. If you add that, I'll pass this article. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Sure that does not a ref. Do not understand how I missed it... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

It happens to the best of us. Congratulations on your good work. I'm passing this as a Good Article. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:49, 13 January 2012 (UTC)