Talk:Sinus tarsi syndrome/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Just-a-can-of-beans (talk · contribs) 20:51, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I'm going to do this review to help clear up some backlog. Given that the nominator has been inactive for over 2 months, I will rate this either a Pass or Fail based on its present condition. Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 20:51, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Organization of paragraphs and general flow of the page leave a lot to be desired, but they aren't flawed to such a degree that they harm the reading experience, and thus are not enough to fail in this category. However, there some minor issues for prose and grammar - certain areas of the page are overly verbose, often due to the use of colloquial language. I will leave those specific comments for 1B, and give 1A a pass.21:09, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The page relies too heavily on lists. Some of the information contained within lists needs to be explained and given context via paragraph/narrative form. Additionally, much of the page lacks internal links. Also, not required and not related to the fail, but the page could really use some more pictures.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	The citations are not all complete. A spot check of #10 finds that the page/website includes the names of two authors (and their credentials) as well as the date of last review, but these are not included in this Wikipedia reference list. After reviewing the full list, I've found that one other (#4) also lacks a date or attribution, but they are not provided on the page (more comments on this source in 2B). For 2A, since it's a minor issue with a single source, I'm not comfortable failing the entire thing for this small error, so I'm tagging it as neutral. EDIT: Reference #3 is missing the author's name, which is included in the linked source. 21:24, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Reference #4 is not a reliable source. It is a private webpage for what appears to be a podiatry office in Australia. The author is not listed and the page is not dated. Listen, just because the podiatry office exists and has a staff with real credentials, does not mean that its web pages are credible sources. I used to be a freelance web writer, and I got paid to write content just like that, as a random high school kid. Usually, the person paying me was with a company that had been contracted by the business to keep the website updated with content every so often. In other words, it's not unlikely that the doctors at that practice have never even seen the page being referenced, let alone writing it. Because this source is used across multiple parts of the page, I am grading a fail for item 2B. The other 10 sources all appear fine. There is also an unsourced statement at the end of the "Conservative treatments" section. 21:24, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
	2c. it contains no original research.	No issues. 21:24, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	No issues, all content appears to be paraphrased adequately. 21:24, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The diagnosis section essentially lists diagnostic techniques that may be used, without exploring any criteria or findings that would indicate the diagnosis. Additionally, the prognosis section (or any other part of the page) does not sufficiently explore any potential complications or the long-term outlook. Finally, the treatment section fails to list specific medications or their effects, as well as strangely listing oral corticosteroids as "invasive". I think someone with a bit stronger grasp of medical language and science could help improve this aspect. 21:34, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Everything on the page seems to be well within appropriate scope.21:09, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No issues. 21:34, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No issues. 21:09, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Only one picture, no issues. 21:09, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Only one picture, no issues. 21:09, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
	7. Overall assessment.	This page has several major issues to address before it can be given GA status. The most pressing of these, in my opinion, are those listed under box 3A - the page simply doesn't cover the bases of the subject well enough to be a good article. Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 21:34, 12 February 2024 (UTC)