Talk:Hypopituitarism/GA1

GA Review

The article does not meet the Good article criteria at this time. I'd probably rate the current version somewhere between B- and C-class (C+?) currently. I think there's a pretty good outline of topics to begin with (start with discussing the signs and symptoms, then the diagnosis, causes, pathophysiology, treatment, epidemiology, and history). You might be able to combine 'causes' with 'pathophysiology' into one section, since they're somewhat related. Also, the 'causes' section contains just a single table, which appears to be all from a single source, so there's possible completeness issues there.

Referencing is where the article fails the most. The bulk of the article is cited by citation #1, which is used over 26 times in the article. This is the first time I've actually seen a citation go from single letters to double letters because it's used so much! It's a bit excessive, and there are only five other citations used by the article, which is also inadequate. Citing material primarily from one source also lacks a 'broad' view of a subject, which is another big criterion of WP:WIAGA.

Some sections are very short -- 'history' and 'epidemiology' come to mind here. The 'further investigations' subsection is also very short. Expansion could be done. Try to focus on writing good, in depth prose in main sections, and integrating everything under that, splitting main sections into subsections only when necessary to improve readability. Some of these subsections (in diagnosis and treatment) are unnecessary.

The lead section could use some work. It's a bit awkward to read. It starts out with a definition of this subject, but then jumps awkwardly to a statement defining the pituitary gland itself, then goes to talking about hormones, then back to the disease itself. I think this could be rephrased to better discuss the topic itself. It could also be rewritten to better summarize the article, as a lead section should do. See WP:LEAD for tips on improving this section.

Like I said, you've got a good start, and a reasonably good outline. But not a good article yet. Lots of work left to be done. Good luck! Dr. Cash (talk) 16:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for having a look anyway.

I tend to separate "causes" from "pathophysiology" as they discuss different aspects. Exceptions would be if these are very short sections. "History" is very hard to populate; "epidemiology" has little empirical data. Will try to find more stuff.

I will find some more sources and expand more. I have no problem using a source 26 times if it is a good broad source (which it is) but I agree diversification is needed.

The lead section needs to explain what the pituitary does before explaining what happens when it fails. JFW | T@lk 06:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)