Talk:Oxygen toxicity/GA1

GA Review

The article in its present form does not meet the Good Article criteria, and cannot be listed. There are numerous issues with the article. While the intro seems to introduce the topic and offer a basic definition of the subject, the organization of the article is quite poor, and it's not easy to read. The lead could also be strengthened to better summarize the article.

There is little compliance with wikipedia's manual of style, especially regarding section headers. The two main sections, on CNS and pulmonary toxicity, have a good amount of information, but the multiple 3rd level headers, which are also quite wordy, is doing very little to help improve readability. My suggestion here is to ditch these subsection headers, and focus on writing good, well-written sections that tie content together with prose instead of multiple headers.

Most of the other sections have very little content and don't meet GA's comprehensiveness criterion:

• 'Hyperoxia' -- a simple definition of hyperoxia can be done as the first sentence in the lead, and doesn't exactly need its own section.
• 'Mechanism' -- change to 'mechanism of action'. Section is poorly worded, containing contradictions; stating that the mechanism is not known, but then goes on to discuss several mechanisms? I'm not understanding the reason for the last line, "Note similarity to Reperfusion injury."?
• 'types' -- this is just repeating the major items of CNS and pulmonary toxicity, as well as listing 'retinopathic oxygen toxicity'; a better idea would be to just have one main section called 'types', and have three subsections within (without separate 3rd level headings underneath them) for each of the main types of oxygen toxicity. The redundancy of having the list, and then going into new main sections is unnecessary and confusing.
• 'Retinopathic oxygen toxicity' -- very little content of this section. Incomplete.
• 'Hyperventilation' -- very little content. Incomplete.

So, in its present form, the article cannot be GA. I think the article needs a major organizational overhaul, followed by a good copyedit by an editor familiar with the manual of style. Dr. Cash (talk) 19:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)