Talk:Pathophysiology of hypertension/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Redlinux (talk) 12:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Very good article, but I can help You a little with few items, which IMHO should be improved (and that's the sense of a review):

• I personally miss some subjects:
  • like the neurovascular compression of the medulla oblongata by vessels (like art. cerebellaris ant. inf., e.a.)
  • maybe in a "good article" the genetic mutations should (at least in part) be specified (GNB 3-825T ...)?
  • and maybe also the pathophysiology of the reasons for secondary hypertension should be added
• "... which is a chronic disease characterized by elevation ..." (Introduction) - hypertension is not a disease, but a symptom and an additional riskfactor.
• "... and to the size of the vascular compartment. ..." (Introduction) - not just to the size, but also to elastisity ("air-camber function") - in the next sentence You are describing the "peripheral resistance", hmm.

At the moment I would prefer "aspects of the regulation of blood pressure" or so, as title of the article. But nevertheless, it's already a good article. Greetings Redlinux (talk) 12:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the time you spent reviewing the article, and I will be working with you on promoting the article to the GA status starting now, Thank you again. MaenK.A._Talk 19:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

About addressing the pathophysiology of the secondary causes, do you suggest that i separate the article into two parts?? primary and secondary?? MaenK.A._Talk 21:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Hallo madhero, separating the articles might be the easiest possibility - but I'd suggest to include the additional subjects (maybe in a short form - if there are referring "main"-articles) into the article itself ... for instance using the topic "secondary hypertension". Greetings Redlinux^···→ 21:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

GA criteria

This nomination seems to have been orphaned, as the last comments by the first reviewer were over a month ago. The first comments didn't appear to match the article up against the six GA criteria, so I will do that here.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   The prose is a bit rough and could use a good working over by an experienced copy editor. There's a lot of little things, like places where sentences are ended with a period and a new sentence begins without a capital letter, or no space between sentences. A good sprinkling of commas here and there could help some sentence readability.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   Citations seem fine and they are formatted and readable. Not sure if it's necessary to link to wiki-articles on journal titles (hence all the red links in the references section), but that's not a critical issue for GA.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   I don't think that the article is very well organized, and the lead section doesn't really introduce the three subsections very well. A good lead section should introduce the topic, summarize the article, and connect the summary directly with the major sections below. For example, I see that the lead introduces essential and secondary hypertension, but the main sections really don't connect the causes to either of these really well. I am also concerned with the rather large number of citations used in the lead section -- while some are acceptable here, since the lead should be a summary, the presence of lots of citations in the lead is an indication that information is not being summarized, but covered as it were in a main section. It might help to review WP:LEAD for more help in improving this section.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   I don't see any blatant WP:NPOV violations, but I am a bit concerned with the opening statement of, "The pathophysiology of hypertension is an area of active research,..." (and "area of active research" is repeated again in the second paragraph). It seems to me like it's obvious that it's an area of active research, and instead, the lead should focus on the pathophysiological causes of hypertension. Such a broad statement about being an "area of active research" sounds like you might be writing a grant proposal instead of an encyclopedia article, and, if used, should definitely be cited with current citations.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No stability issues that I can see.

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):

   There is only one image in the article, and it meets the criteria.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   As of right now, I don't think that the article meets all six GA criteria. I think what we have here is a set of "good notes" on the subject, but those notes need to be organized better to build a "good article". I think it's best to leave this article on hold for about another week while the issues are addressed. Dr. Cash (talk) 21:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with You - the point "Broad in its coverage" is very problematic here, as I pointed out already Redlinux^···→ 13:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

No article change in two weeks. One of you can safely fail it at this point. Wizardman 15:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Still no changes despite the writer editing, yet not to this page, and two people reviewing this. Article failed. Wizardman 21:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)