Talk:Human genetic resistance to malaria/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Xtzou (Talk) 15:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): The prose is filled with unexplained jargon. Examples:

   • "Evidence has accumulated that the first line of defense against malaria is provided by genetically-controlled innate resistance, mainly exerted by abnormal hemoglobins and glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency."
   • "Pauling postulated that the hemoglobin (Hb) in sickle-cell disease is abnormal; when deoxygenated it polymerizes into long, thin, helical rods that distort the red cell into a sickle shape. In his laboratory electrophoretic studies showed that sickle-cell Hb (S) is indeed abnormal, having at physiological pH a lower negative charge than normal adult human Hb (A).[3] In sickle-cell trait carriers there is a nearly equal amount of HbA and HbS, whereas in persons with sickle-cell disease nearly all the Hb is of the S type, apart from a small amount of fetal Hb."
   • Such sentences need explanation of jargon. Articles as much as possible should be accessible to the general reader. Further, almost all the section are one huge block of text that are uninviting and intimidating to the reader.

   b (MoS): Examples:

   The article does not comply with WP:LEAD which states that the lead should be a concise introduction to the article and summary of the article's sections; everything in the lead must appear in the article. Most of the article is not summarized in the lead.

   It also does not comply with WP:LAYOUT which states, among other guidelines, that the TOC should hierarchical, whereas in this article all the heading are on the same level. The section titles violate the guidelines on section headings which says that heading should be written with care, for example, very long heading are distracting.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): Examples:

   "Malaria has placed the strongest known selective pressure on the human genome since the origination of agriculture within the past 10,000 years." - Is this true?

   Malaria is the strongest known force for evolutionary selection in recent history. It is estimated that at least 15% of the world’s population are carrier for one or other of the Red Blood Cell disorders that have been maintained in areas where malaria is endemic. (Kwiatkowski DP.How Malaria Has Affected the Human Genome and What Human Genetics Can Teach Us about Malaria. Am J Hum Genet 2005; 77: 171–192) Hempelmann (talk) 10:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

   Some sections such as "The Natural History of Malaria Infections" and "The Sickle-Cell Gene" have only a few references in the middle of the section.

3. "b (citations to reliable sources): } c (OR):

   I suspect there may be too great a reliance on primary sources rather than surveys, per WP:MEDRS, but I did not evaluate this aspect.

4. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   I have a feeling that this article contains very good information, but it is inaccessible to the general reader.

5. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

6. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

7. 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): }

8. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• I will put this article on hold for seven days, and I am willing to help to the degree I can. I suggest ordering the article with hierarchical headings and presenting the information in an organized way so the reader can see the structure of the article. The article also needs a major copy edit by an editor familiar with the guidelines and policies of WP:MoS. This article has great potential.

If you disagree with this assessment, you may renominate the article for GA again, or ask for Wikipedia:Good article reassessment . Regards, Xtzou (Talk) 16:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

• Addendum. I'm going to ask for a second opinion from another reviewer, as I'm not confident in my ability to give an informative and useful review of this article. Xtzou (Talk) 16:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Second opinion

I agree with Xtzou assessment.

• There are significant issues with none compliance to WP:MOS. The extensive use of caps still requires improvement.
• The language is too technical and complicated terms are not linked like DARC and G6PD deficiency.

DARC and G6PD deficiency are linked Hempelmann (talk) 16:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

• The article does not have an easy to recognize order to it.

Subarticles rearranged Hempelmann (talk) 16:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

• "inherited variants in erythrocytes" in the lead should be hemoglobin not erythrocytes

Inherited variants in erythrocytes are not only hemoglobin variants but also membrane modifications (ovalocytosis etc) and abnormally low levels of glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase Hempelmann (talk) 13:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

• This page is a sub page of one of the topic areas of the main malaria article and should have a name similar to this subsection.

Adjusted the name of the subsection of the main malaria article Hempelmann (talk) 13:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Further comments The article is much improved by the addition of subsections. However, serious problems remain, including:

• The article still does not comply with WP:LEAD nor with the WP:MOS rules regarding section headings.
• I think the article should start out with some introduction to the disease of malaria. It says it is caused by a parasite, but it says little else about the disease process. Likewise, much of the other information in the article needs a prologue or introduction to set it in context.

Malaria is caused by an unicellular parasite that lives in the blood and is transmitted by mosquitoes, link to the Malaria article is made. Our entry is not only about malaria, but describes the first example of natural selection in human populations, as well as the first example of innate immunity to an infectious disease. Both of these are major contributions to biomedical science which are widely taught in school and university courses. Hempelmann (talk) 15:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

• The passive voice, such as "It was found to be caused by" is consider to be {{weasel}}, that is, the attribution is indirect while wikipedia requires direct attribution. "So-and-so found that...."

In 1927 Vernon Hahn and Elizabeth Biermann Gillespie showed that sickling of the red cells was related to low oxygen, reference is added. Hempelmann (talk) 15:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

• Most sections are still monolithic blocks of text. This is not considered reader friendly.

More images have been included Hempelmann (talk) 06:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

• The possible use of primary sources, rather that secondary sources or survey articles as set forth by WP:MEDRS.

We have given a comprehensive account of the main contributions in the field. Hempelmann (talk) 19:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a encyclopedia. It is not for original ideas, but for ideas cited in a secondary sources per WP:MEDRS. Xtzou (Talk) 20:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Recent reviews have been included Hempelmann (talk) 05:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Xtzou (Talk) 17:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

More comments

• Please read the MOS and fix headings accordingly, among other problems. (For example, heading must comply with Article titles, headings, and sections) It is necessary to comply with the MOS. The "blocks of text" do not refer to a lack of images but to the way the text is laid out in paragraphs. Please read WP:LEAD for what should go into the lead. And WP:LAYOUT, WP:summary style (avoiding unnecessary detail) and WP:JARGON. Also, necessary is to comply with Wikipedia:NOR, which means an editor may not compile information from sources in a novel or original way in a Wikipedia article. That is why reliable, secondary sources are necessary to show that the article is not original. It is necessary to comply with all of these guidelines in order to pass as a GA. This article should be accessible to the general reader with no expertise in the field. Xtzou (Talk) 12:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

• I am going to fail the article, as the problems outlined above have not been addressed. I urge you to renominate the article when you feel it is ready. Meanwhile, you may get significant help at Peer review. If you feel this assessment is is error, you may appeal it at Good article reassessment. Thank you for your hard work. The article contains important material and, when the problems are addressed, will be worthy of GA. Best wishes, Xtzou (Talk) 16:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)