Talk:Biological aspects of fluorine/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: LT910001 (talk · contribs) 01:19, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no objections, I'll take this review. I'll note at the outset I've had no role in editing or creating this article or it's parent (fluorine). I welcome other editors at any state to contribute to this review. LT910001 (talk) 01:19, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment

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.	Prose is for the most part clear and concise. Concerns noted below.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lede is too brief.
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.	Several unsourced areas; numerous citations are links to sources which are not provided in the bibliography.
	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).	Yes
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage: Yes
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Yes
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: Yes
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Requires improvement (see above criteria)

Commentary

This is a fairly well-written article and I apologise to the nominee for having to wait one-and-a-half months. I feel the lede does not do a good job of summarising the article, and that the structure is a little arbitrary. Would you consider organising the article according to the headings 'Biological', 'Medical' (subheadings imaging, pharmaceutical, dental, blood research), 'Agricultural' (subheadings insecticide,agrichemicals), 'Archeological'. Such a structure would make this article much easier to read by helping give some context to each of the subheadings. I await your response; kind regards, LT910001 (talk) 01:30, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned that the daughter article does not have significant expansion over what is currently in the mother. Also that at least a check needs to be made of recent changes in the mother that may not have propagated to the daughter. I also really wonder if it is the sort of article that should really be developed. Feels like an "X of Y" subsection spinout, but not a strong topic. I could see development of the industry article or the compounds article much more naturally. I think before proceeding further with a review, should get some feedback from you on if it makes sense to proceed. The generation of new insights for the parent is one benefit of these GAs, I had not realized though.

Could consider to add in the environmental and hazard sections from mother article (maybe the version that was longer from a few months ago before cuts were done). Becomes a little puzzle over what to take or leave in parent (or even other spinouts). But note, for Compounds, we did grab some content from the Characteristics section.

I like the org suggestions a lot (stronger themes)! May consider doing same in the parent article (only tricky thing is image placement, the PET scan is a hassle but I think I can make it work).

Agreed on the lead, that was slapped on when the spinoff was done. Maybe even a little informative research needs being done to really reflect and try to build some stronger theme. Could also be sexed up with some discussion of the danger/benefit and political controversy.

Just rewrite the prose please (if we proceed). ;-)

71.127.137.171 (talk) 19:57, 13 October 2013 (UTC) -TCO[reply]

Thank you for your comments. Am I addressing the nominee or a second reviewer? LT910001 (talk) 03:44, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm TCO (main author). Let's stick to content not creators. The structure comment was spot on. You go, girl. Great insight.208.44.87.91 (talk) 00:04, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the first commenter that this article does suffer from ambiguous scope and might benefit from a rename to "Biological uses of fluorine" or "Biological applications of fluorine" to help define what content is contained within here. However, neither this nor how this article relates to the parent article is one of the WP:GARC. I'll await changes to the lede and structure of the article before I continue the review. I have also checked images and there are no copyright problems, so I have updated the criteria accordingly. LT910001 (talk) 10:22, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reorganisation

The article looks much better now. I have updated the GA table accordingly. Things that are now preventing promotion are:

Several unsourced areas of text
Several in-text references to books which do not provide the complete references in the bibliography section.
Concerns regarding a lead section which is very brief and does not do a good job of summarising the article.
- I expanded the lead and used your suggestions about the controversial nature of the element...to basically just make the thing have a bit of a theme and a so what. Feel free to improve.38.107.128.2 (talk) 01:33, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making the edit. There may have been a miscommunication earlier, my meaning that the lead was inadequate was that it didn't reflect the article's content (which doesn't include the controversy). The new lead may need a bit of a copy-edit and tidy-up (as most new content), but certainly does a better job of summarising the article's content. LT910001 (talk) 11:18, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned it up a little, reduced the controversy theme.98.117.75.177 (talk) 12:41, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Small concerns regarding readability, grammar (see list below) LT910001 (talk) 21:53, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Read-through

Natural biochemistry

Suggest integrate "See also "Fluoride deficiency". into the preceding sentence, so that it reads: "only an issue in the formulation of artificial diets, which may lead to fluoride deficiency. Not required for GA nomination.

Dental care

"it has been understood (from population studies)" suggest change to "accepted" or, at the very least, wikilinking of "population studies"
The 5.7% statistic interested me. The cited paper cites a 2004 paper behind a paywall. I would not be surprised if that paper cited a third paper. If possible, I would request that you update this statistic with a more recent figure, and at the very least add "As of 2004" preceding the statistic.
"particularly those undergoing radiation therapy to the head (cancer patients). " suggest -> "particularly cancer patients undergoing radiation therapy to the head"

Pharmaceuticals

The following sections need sources:

"Fluorine is added to drug molecules as even a single atom of it can greatly change the chemical properties of the molecule in ways that are desirable."
"Because of the considerable stability of the carbon-fluorine bond, many drugs are fluorinated to delay ... from being produced."
"organofluorides are generally very stable, since the carbon–fluorine bond is strong."

This sentence is off-topic and I suggest remove: "Prior to 1980s, antidepressants altered ... family of broad-spectrum antibiotics.[24]" Other:

"treatment of cancers; especially Hodgkin's lymphoma" suggest especially-> including, as this is not necessarily comprehensive and may not be accurate going into the future.

Oxygen transport research

Suggest integrate " (because the normal lung function is compromised). " into sentence for readability.
Spelling? "Perfuorocarbons "

Agriculture

"stimulate the growth instead" -> remove 'the'
A little confused how this sentence fits into the paragraph, as the precediting sentence stated that 30% of products already used contained fluorine: "It is expected that how often the fluorine agrichemicals will be used depends on two factors: if the synthesis reaction will be improved (to reduce the prices) and if green chemistry will be taken in account to a larger scale (fluorochemicals are more environment-friendly).[47]".
Suggest reword "An important agrichemcial is " to show context: "A notable example of a chemical is:"
"It was once very important (for example, in 1998 over a half of U.S. cotton field area was coated with the chemical[48]); " suggest integrate brackets into paragraph for readability

HF

This paragraph is unsourced: “Symptoms of exposure to hydrofluoric acid may not be immediately evident, with 8-hour delay for 50% HF and up to 24 hours for lower concentrations. Hydrogen fluoride interferes with nerve function, meaning that burns may not initially be painful.”

Look

Good review, thanks. It was fun being tongue in cheek and writing something non-Wikibland in lead to shock the squares. I can't commit to fixing all the observations (still really unsure the value of this article as anything other than a spinout from main article for length...theme is not that tight.) For the agrichem, there was some stuff that was a bit off from R8r (no offense, he tried) that I rewrote better now in parent article. For the refs, I think they all were there and can be dug out of old versions and the like, but I can't commit to that sort of detail work. Really hurts me head to concentrate on refs, with the Wikicode and such. In MS Word and writing a document that I control, I don't seem to have this issue of refs wandering around.

The kid who nominated it is a nice fellow but he has not done any work on the article and just threw it into the queue unready.71.127.137.171 (talk) 14:25, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your concerns regarding article scope, as we (?) have discussed above. I believe this article can be promoted within a reasonable time-span, so I will continue this review. If there's no action within a week, I'll mark this as closed. LT910001 (talk) 23:12, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No action within a week. This article has the potential to make GA status, but needs further alteration as I have noted. Would encourage renomination when the issues noted above are addressed. Kindly, LT910001 (talk) 05:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]