Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Hepatorenal syndrome/1

Hepatorenal syndrome

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

Result: Keep per article improvements and consensus below. Geometry guy 20:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Much improvement has been made since this article was nominated for reassessment a few more comments:

still lacks images
section on prevention is vague and needs to be expanded
I presume that all the info in the epidemiology section is American. This should be stated and a world overview should be created if possible

--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree with the above that the article could certainly use some free-use images. Also, I note that subsections including Hepatorenal_syndrome#Pathophysiology and Hepatorenal_syndrome#Intravenous_albumin are tagged with expansion needed. Cirt (talk) 09:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question. I read Doc James' short comment on the talk page stating that the article fails WP:LEAD. Can you help us understand what's wrong with the lead? Thanks. Majoreditor (talk) 02:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, most of the epidemiological data on HRS is European (mainly due to the multi-centre European terlipressin studies). The articles I used were the terlipressin study, an article from the Barcelona group, and prognostics were from a review from Toronto. Hard to find an image relevant to HRS unless someone (maybe User:Nephron can get a picture of MARS)? It has been a while since I was involved in GA but is an image a criterion now? -- Samir 03:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also I'll hit up prevention and pathophysiology later tonight -- Samir 03:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This comment was from when the page looked like this [1] Samir has done some great work on this page and has improved it greatly over the last couple of weeks. I now have no concerns with it continuing on as a GA. Cheers--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, looks much better. Cirt (talk) 08:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking it over guys. Appreciated -- Samir 10:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question. I would be happy for the reassessment to be closed on the basis of the agreement above. However, can I just ask editors to check/confirm that the Scientific citation guidelines are being followed. For example:
- In Hepatorenal_syndrome#Signs_and_symptoms, are the last two sentences also supported by reference [1]?
- In Hepatorenal_syndrome#Diagnosis, second bullet, "While this can be difficult to confidently diagnose..." According to whom? Is this scientific consensus, and if so what is the source?
- In Hepatorenal_syndrome#Pathophysiology, is the last paragraph entirely sourced to reference [5]?
- In Hepatorenal_syndrome#Liver_transplantation, it isn't clear what is the source for the last paragraph ("have been found beneficial" according to whom?)

Thanks in advance for responding to these (possibly naive) concerns. Geometry guy 21:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Geometry guy, thanks very much for coming here! My intent is to get this to FA level and meeting WP:SCG is critical. To answer your questions:

1: yes -- they are defined by the IAC article. I will add ref to the end of the paragraph

2: we should get rid of the "While this can be difficult to confidently diagnose" as it doesn't add anything but speculation -- wil ldo

3: aldosterone mechanism is within realm of common knowledge but the activation with aldosterone is best referenced by Schrier's article positing the underfill theory for cirrhosis (ref 9). Blendis and Wong's work (ref 5) reviews the spectrum to HRS and should be referenced also. Will change

4: the paragraph should be sourced to Gines' review article (ref 8). I should change the wording to "have been found to preserve renal function" which is the endpoint of the relevant studies

I am going to seek out some of the general FA folks (YellowMonkey and SandyGeorgia) to help tone down the medical jargon and Felix-felix and Nephron for the renal side of things. Thanks again everyone -- Samir 15:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that clears up my concerns. I'm willing to close in 3 days if no one beats me to it and no objections are raised. Geometry guy 20:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]