Talk:Linezolid/GA1
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Comments to follow soon jimfbleak (talk) 12:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
- images all OK, query "click to enlarge" on two images, since thumbed anyway
- I considered forcing a larger image size, but didn't think it would be a good idea. Perhaps get rid of the "invitation"?
- Yes, the thumb symbol is self-explanatory, and people don't like forced image sizes because it overrides settings jimfbleak (talk) 14:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
- Done. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, the thumb symbol is self-explanatory, and people don't like forced image sizes because it overrides settings jimfbleak (talk) 14:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
- I considered forcing a larger image size, but didn't think it would be a good idea. Perhaps get rid of the "invitation"?
- references first quick scan of refs - seem reliable and consistently and correctly formatted. It would be good practice to write the journal names in full (required if you go to FAC).
- Hmm, didn't know that was a requirement now. Easy fix, though I personally prefer abbreviations. Done. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
- several thousands of dollars suggest several thousand US dollars (unless you mean Canadian)
- Ah, yes. Done. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
- some padding however for instance and similar sprinkled throughout
- That's a terrible habit of mine. Please feel free to remove any you find unnecessary—I'll have a go at it myself.
- MIC90 - would it be better to spell out this - a casual reader has no chance of knowing the abbreviation?
- OK. I thought the link would be sufficient, but we shouldn't presume readers will click on them :)
- I think it's good practice, as you have done elsewhere, to spelll out abbreviations first time (even if there is a link jimfbleak (talk) 14:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
- Done. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
- I think it's good practice, as you have done elsewhere, to spelll out abbreviations first time (even if there is a link jimfbleak (talk) 14:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
- OK. I thought the link would be sufficient, but we shouldn't presume readers will click on them :)
- There is no mention of use or approval outside the UK and N America. Whilst I wouldn't want this to become a list, and I appreciate the difficulty of working with non-English sources, it looks a bit Anglo-centric. Not a deal breaker, but anything else would help to round it out - is it widely used in the EU or Japan for example?
- Will try to expand on this later.
- Fine jimfbleak (talk) 14:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
- OK, I've expanded on approval. It's not easy to find top-notch sources for approval dates, though. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
- Fine jimfbleak (talk) 14:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
- Will try to expand on this later.
You obviously know what you are doing, I'll give you a while to respond before a final read and formal assessment jimfbleak (talk) 12:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. Please feel free to list anything else you think could or should be improved. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Review
[edit]- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS):
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references):
b (citations to reliable sources):
c (OR):
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects):
b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars etc.:
- No edit wars etc.:
- It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
I wish they were all this easy! jimfbleak (talk) 14:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you! I didn't think it would be this easy either :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
What does the paragraph starting with "In 2009, Pfizer paid $2.3 billion and entered a corporate integrity agreement to settle charges that it had misbranded and illegally promoted four drugs, and caused false claims to be submitted to government healthcare programs. . ." have to do with linezolid? NOTHING. It's editorializing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oirudleahcim (talk • contribs) 02:12, 25 October 2015 (UTC)