Jump to content

Talk:Brugada syndrome/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: Natureium (talk · contribs) 16:25, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've never done a GAN review before, so please let me know (politely) if I'm doing anything wrong.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    Suggested changes:
    Lead: new mutation -> new genetic mutation : Done PeaBrainC (talk) 20:59, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Causes: disturbed -> disrupted? : Done PeaBrainC (talk) 20:59, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't know if " known as loss of function mutations." fits in the paragraph : Done PeaBrainC (talk) 20:59, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Does the term "overlap syndrome" apply? The article on overlap syndrome only describes it in the context of autoimmune connective tissue disorders.: Not done Overlap syndrome is certainly a correct term to describe, for example, the phenotype of Brugada and Long QT 3 syndrome in the same patient, or Brugada and ARVC. I appreciate the current article for overlap syndrome doesn't explicitly mention this and I will try to add a paragraph to that article in due course PeaBrainC (talk) 20:59, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I have now amended the article on Overlap syndrome to better reflect that this term is used to refer to more than just autoimmune conditions. PeaBrainC (talk) 17:19, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    in SCN5A that reduced -> reduces : Done PeaBrainC (talk) 20:59, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mechanism: heart racing -> rapid heart rate : Done PeaBrainC (talk) 17:19, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Diagnosis: link to ST elevation : Done PeaBrainC (talk) 17:19, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Choose either Genetic testing or Causes/genetics to mention incomplete penetrance : Done PeaBrainC (talk) 17:19, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    "occurring as a bystander" is unnecessary and somewhat confusing : Done PeaBrainC (talk) 17:19, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Treatment: per WP:EL, external links do not belong in the body : Done PeaBrainC (talk) 17:19, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    History: see in -> seen in : Done PeaBrainC (talk) 17:19, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    lead to competing theories -> led to : Done PeaBrainC (talk) 17:19, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    Sources # 9, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 25, 28, 39, 41, 42, are primary sources, but are mainly used for background information
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Hi @Natureium:, thanks for reviewing this article. It's only my 2nd GAN but to my inexperienced eyes looks like you've done a good job. I will get on with making the amendments you have suggested and mark them as done on this page as I go. It may take a few days - busy times in the real world! PeaBrainC (talk) 09:48, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good! Congrats! Natureium (talk) 21:50, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]