Talk:Thyroid ima artery/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Wugapodes (talk · contribs) 04:19, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Will review Wugapodes (talk) 04:19, 2 March 2016 (UTC) Disclaimer: I am a participant in the WikiCup, as is the nominator

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments

If the comment is numbered, it must be addressed for the article to pass, if it is bulleted, it's an optional suggestion or comment that you don't need to act on right now.
When I quote things, you can use ctrl+f to search the page for the specific line I quoted.

1. The photo in the infobox seems inappropriate to me. In an article about a particular artery, the infobox shows an image where the artery isn't even present. It might be okay if used as an image lower in the article, but I don't think it's appropriate for the infobox.

   Done - moved.

2. "been reported to be the only source of blood to the thyroid gland" is this always true of its presence? Further down it seems that it's not so that should be made clear in the lead.

   Done - clarified.

3. "failure of the vessel to close, remaining patent." Could this be reworded so that it's more easily understood, particularly "remaining patent" as it's not even wikilinked for non-experts to find out what it means.

   Done - I have been meaning to write an article about it. Mentioned "open" as it is mentioned at Patent ductus arteriosus.

4. "It is postulated" by whom? Was it just the one author cited or is there a group or is it a larger consensus in the field?

   Done - removed.

• Remember to state the obvious. While the ima artery is an anatomical variant, it is first and foremost an artery and that's not explicitly stated in the lead at all and probably should be.

  Done - yes.

• The section break for Thymica accessoria is really unnecessary for only one sentence that could easily fit within the previous paragraph. See MOS:PARAGRAPHS

  Done - removed.

• The prose could be tightened up significantly. For example, in the lead, every sentence but one starts with "The artery". The clinical significance section doesn't really tell me why it's clinically significant (bleeding during surgery) until the very end.

  Done - I tried.

Thank you so much for the review, Wugapodes. Let me know if I missed anything. Regards, Yash! 11:41, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Results

On hold for 7 days pending revisions. Wugapodes (talk) 18:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Listed Well done! Wugapodes (talk) 17:14, 6 March 2016 (UTC)