Talk:Rigid spine syndrome

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Molecular Biology Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Rigid spine syndrome was nominated as a Natural sciences good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (April 12, 2024, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

GA Review

Latest comment: 7 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion

This review is transcluded from Talk:Rigid spine syndrome/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Rathod Dharmarajsinh (talk · contribs) 16:21, 11 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Reviewer: C.Fred (talk · contribs) 02:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Failed "good article" nomination

This article has failed its Good article nomination. This is how the article, as of April 12, 2024, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: ✗ Fail. Very choppy writing with a lot of one-sentence paragraphs and one-paragraph sections.

2. Verifiable?:

Pass

3. Broad in coverage?: Borderline. Lacking a history of discovery of the syndrome.

4. Neutral point of view?:

Pass

5. Stable?: ✗ Fail. Article not even 24 hours old.

6. Images?: ✗ Fail. No images.

This article is probably Start quality, low C at best. It needs a lot of copyediting before it will be ready to be a Good Article candidate.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far. —C.Fred (talk) 02:29, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Add topic