Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Cancer/1

Cancer

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Delist per consensus below. Geometry guy 19:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs a reassessment:

one of the big concerns is the lack of references in many sections
it is also a little long, many of the sections should be split off with a summary in the main article

--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remove GA status and back to the drawing board. Numerous sections are drawn on no references whatsoever, others are intensively over-cited to dubious papers. I think one or two editors should spend a while simply removing untenable claims and trying to find sources for the most "barn door logical, uncontested and verifiable" claims. JFW | T@lk 17:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Lack of referencing throughout seems like something that would be difficult to address in a short time period. Cirt (talk) 23:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's not required that each section have in-line citations. That said, there are numerous problems with lack of proper citations to reliable sources. For example:

The vaccine protects against four HPV types, which together cause 70% of cervical cancers and 90% of genital warts
Hepatitis viruses, including hepatitis B and hepatitis C, can induce a chronic viral infection that leads to liver cancer in 0.47% of hepatitis B patients per year (especially in Asia, less so in North America), and in 1.4% of hepatitis C carriers per year.

The best course of action may be to delist until the article is brought up to GA standards. Majoreditor (talk) 02:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. There's a large amount of material that needs to be cited per the criteria, but isn't. One or two sections even appear to be OR (e.g. Cancer#Comparison_to_non-biological_organisms). Summary style is employed unevenly. Several sections are unnecessarily list-like. The lead does not summarize the article. There's unnecessary use of jargon. So in my view, this fails at least 1b,2b, and 3b and may well also fail 1a, 2a and 2c. Geometry guy 20:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I share your concerns about the "Comparison to non-biological organisms" section. I decided to act boldly and remove it. Majoreditor (talk) 00:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It can of course be readded if reliable secondary sources are provided which support this analysis. Geometry guy 01:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]