Talk:Aphthous stomatitis/GA1
GA Review edit
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: LT910001 (talk · contribs) 06:19, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello! I would be honoured to take this review, and haven't had any part in editing or creating this article. I have previously collaborated with Lesion and would be therefore happy if another person wanted to be the main reviewer.
Overall I found this article very readable, tight and packed full of content. I would support its promotion to GA status.
More specific comments:
Lede edit
Lede Done
|
---|
Suggested reworked lead based on this feedback:
|
Classification edit
Classification Done
|
---|
|
Signs and symptoms edit
Signs and symptoms Done
|
---|
|
Causes edit
Causes Done
|
---|
|
Diagnosis edit
Diagnosis Done
|
---|
|
Treatment edit
Treatment Done
|
---|
|
Prognosis edit
Prognosis Done
|
---|
|
Epidemiology edit
Epidemiology Done
|
---|
History edit
History Done
|
---|
|
Citations edit
Citations Done
|
---|
|
Overall comments edit
In conclusion a tight, well-written article. LT90001 (talk) 06:19, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for detailed review. Agree that table in treatments section needs inline citation. I will do this soon. Lesion (talk) 13:45, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
- Table now has inline citation. Done Lesion (talk) 17:38, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
- @LT910001: Just to be clear, are you saying that you are not comfortable being the main reviewer for this GA? If so, I'm not sure anyone else knows to take it, because it appears as though the review has already been taken on the GA nominations page. I wonder if there is a way to mark it as needing a reviewer again? Lesion (talk) 17:38, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
- Hey, sorry for any confusion. I'm quite happy to be the main reviewer. I'll get back you on the commentary today (thought I'd leave a day to space things out a bit). It would be nice if at least one other person lent their support before this article goes to GA, but I think this article's quality stands on its own. LT90001 (talk) 22:41, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi folks; I read through this yesterday after I heard that you'd like a second opinion. I'd like to point out that the image File:Behcets_disease.jpg appears to have an incorrect license. The image is taken from a paper that the source URL indicates is copyrighted. It is unclear why the image is tagged at Commons as CC BY-SA. It doesn't appear that the uploader (who self-identifies on a subpage of his userpage here) is one of the paper's authors. I think the image should be removed unless we can get some source for the purported licensing status. Done -- It looks very similar to the other pictures of ulcers we have here already anyway. Lesion (talk) 14:43, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to point out a few very minor, not-actionable-for-GA quibbles that I noticed because I mostly review at FA:
Further comments Done
|
---|
|
I would be happy to support promotion to GA after resolving that single image issue. Nice work. Maralia (talk) 14:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
I have concluded this review and promoted to GA. Well done! LT90001 (talk) 03:05, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- ^ Brocklehurst, P (2012 Sep 12). "Systemic interventions for recurrent aphthous stomatitis (mouth ulcers)". Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online). 9: CD005411. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD005411.pub2. PMID 22972085.
{{cite journal}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help); Unknown parameter|coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (help)