Talk:Endometrial cancer/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Kirill Lokshin (talk · contribs) 11:03, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

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.	The prose is good, but a bit dense in places, although this is to be expected for a topic of this nature. The statistics in the fourth paragraph in the "Pathophysiology" section (beginning with "Type I and type II cancers...") are difficult to follow in prose form; perhaps moving them to a table would improve the flow?
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	No issues with any of the style guidelines.
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.	Appropriate references are provided, all of which appear to meet the requirements of WP:MEDRS.
	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).	Good use of citations throughout. The citation density varies significantly between sections (for example, while most sections average one citation per 1–3 sentences, the "Endometrioid adenocarcinoma" section has one citation per paragraph); while this is not necessarily a problem, it's unclear whether it was done deliberately.
	2c. it contains no original research.	All of the material appears to be appropriately derived from reliable secondary sources.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Good coverage of the various elements of the topic. I note that an expert review by CRUK has not identified any significant deficiencies in coverage.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Generally well-focused, although certain sections ("Risk factors", "Pathophysiology") go into greater detail than others ("Classification").
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No neutrality issues.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No stability issues.
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.	All images appear to be appropriately tagged; no fair-use images are present.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Good use of images throughout. Some of the image alignments behave oddly on lower screen resolutions, particularly in the "Staging" section; I would suggest not mixing gallery and floating image alignments within the same section.
	7. Overall assessment.	Overall, an excellent article that covers the topic well and is understandable by someone without a medical background. I recommend focusing on prose quality and flow, as well as expanding some of the shorter sections, to further enhance the article before a potential FAC.

Hiding refs in the lead

Not sure why? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

@Jmh649: Discussion with reviewers at FAC, they said it was intimidating. I don't have strong feelings either way. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 14:23, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Can you provide a link? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

@Jmh649: here, I thought that was just a proposal for MEDMOS for now? Or has that changed? I can't keep up with all of this.... Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 18:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

See also section

1. These are not recommended in high quality articles per WP:MEDMOS
2. Terms that are already in an article should not be in a see also section per WP:SEE ALSO

Thus removed this section. Let me know if I have missed anything.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:32, 14 October 2014 (UTC)