Talk:Buruli ulcer/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tom (LT) (talk · contribs) 08:23, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ajpolino, well met again, and great to see another nomination from you, as they are always a pleasure to read. If you don't have any objections I'll take this review. Seeing as you've only nominated it for two weeks, which is on the much-shorter-than-usual side for GA, I'm happy to put this on hold if you're busy with something else. Otherwise, I'll read through the article and have an initial assessment based on the good article criteria in 2-3 days. As you know, I've reviewed around 80 articles in total, am active in the medicine / anatomy space, and have experience receiving reviews (including from yourself) at WP:GA. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:23, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I'm out of town this week, so I may not be able to respond for the next five days or so, but have at it! Thanks in advance for taking the time. I'm hoping to eventually bring this to WP:FAC so any commentary on how the article could be improved (even if it's beyond the scope of GA review) is most welcome. I hope all is well! Ajpolino (talk) 15:07, 2 July 2020 (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.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
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.
	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).	Sources are appropriately and timely
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	No concerns on Earwig's
3. Broad in its coverage:
	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.
	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:
	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.

Commentary

Another very well-written and interesting article! --Tom (LT) (talk) 02:52, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Some components of my review are pending as documented above - will do these over the next few days. --Tom (LT) (talk) 02:52, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Last to do is verify some claims in the article. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:25, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done (random assortment) - no issues identified at all. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:44, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Some comments about prose - won't block nomination however.--Tom (LT) (talk) 02:52, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is very easy to read and flows very well
- I really like how a lot of information is contextualised and additionally helps the reader understand about the practicalities of eg. testing regimens or IV vs. oral regimens.--Tom (LT) (talk) 02:52, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it would be worth inserting a short statement about the etymology of the term Buruli ulcer in the lead section.--Tom (LT) (talk) 02:52, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I feel the "cause" section could have a subsection to do with known or generally accepted risk factors that is written in a clear, person-orientated manner. The rest of the paragraph is quite interesting but, I feel, highlights the scientific and ambiguous aspects. I feel this could be improved by writing a short subsection in a clear way on what the WHO or recent reliable sources considers to be risk factors for people; in particular things such as age, exposure to water, geographical area, and presence of immunosuppression and HIV/AIDS, as well as past TB infection/BCG vaccine exposure; discussion about the specific route of transmission can occur in later subsections. I realise a lot of this information is present throughout the rest of the article, but as a reader I would find such a section interesting and useful. --Tom (LT) (talk) 02:52, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- In the treatment section, I find it confusing that you start with the 2004 WHO recommendation and then AFTER that sentence state the current recommendation. I think it would be more logical to put them the other way around (current recommendation first, then the old recommendation). --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:44, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- For FA status (but not for this review), I think the research section could be expanded a little more. I would suggest splitting it into two paragraphs, one about practicalities of research and one about ongoing research; and potentially add here that due to the small samples sizes owing to it being a rare tropical disease, a combination of primary research and secondary evaluation through review and metaanalysis is used. A comment on if funding is adequate or not would be interesting. I also suggest being more explicit about what research is going on; if is ongoing about IV vs. PO; to list some antibiotics that are being researched as oral alternatives; and if there is some reliable sources talking about vaccines (potentially the WHO or other secondary sources / recent reviews), list briefly how those vaccines are planned to work; and lastly clarify which aspects of M ulcerans infection causing disease is the topic of research, as that statement is quite general.--Tom (LT) (talk) 02:52, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No blocking issues identified at all; article passed. Well done! --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:44, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Tom (LT) for your comments. I'll get to work on these asap! Ajpolino (talk) 01:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]