Talk:Leptomeningeal collateral circulation/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tom (LT) (talk · contribs) 01:49, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello! I'll take up this review. I'll spend a few days reading through the article and then review it. I'll review against the six good article criteria. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:49, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

• @Drtomriddington I'm wondering if you're still active? --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:54, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
• @Tom (LT) thanks! Yes still active, please see my response below.Drtomriddington (talk) 10:31, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Summary

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.	Very well written and easy to understand. Some small changes could be made to enhance readability (see below).
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	See below
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).	Awaiting verification
	2c. it contains no original research.	A-OK.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Awaiting verification
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	And it does this very well
	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.	Exceedingly
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.	Awaiting verification
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	See below
	7. Overall assessment.

Comments

• Overall a great and well-written article. I think there are a few areas which need tightening to meet the GA criteria.
  • The lead does not accurately reflect the main points of the article (WP:LEAD)
  • The function section should be expanded. Also, this sentence is incorrect "when normal circulation through the circle of Willis is impaired". I think what you mean is when a part of the brain receives insufficient blood through through an artery (and this might be proximal or distal to the Circle of Willis), there are collaterals
  • I've made two small edits - put an infobox in and moved a sentence up per WP:MEDMOS#Anatomy
  • For readability, I suggest that where possible the acronyms (eg. ACA, MCA) are fully spelt out, as it makes it harder for readers to understand.
  • Images - most images could reflect the topic but the captions need to be improved to show how this is the case. Although the main image shows cerebral circulation, I am not sure how this helps illustrate leptomeningeal collaterals per se?
• Checks for copyright and images are pending but I really don't anticipate any problems here.

Happy to discuss any points above. If you could reply point by point that would be appreciated :). Cheers --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:20, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Tom - thank you ever so much for taking the time to suggest the above. Here’s my point by point response:

1) Lead: I’ve reviewed the wikipedia brief on what the lead should be - sorry for not seeing this earlier! I’ve expanded the lead, trying to get the key points in without making it overwhelmingly verbose. I hope the new version strikes the right balance, but let me know if you think it needs another tweak.

Thanks, I think you just added one sentence? It should ideally contain some reference to each part of the work - eg structure, function, clinical significance, and history. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:56, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

2) Function: I agree, it’s a very short section currently. I’ve made an immediate change to reflect your suggestion about the inaccurate sentence. I’m going to reflect on how to expand this section more; my immediate thoughts are to talk about the everyday limited function of collaterals vs their role during episodes of pathology.

I look forward to your edits. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:56, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

3) infobox: thanks, I was unclear about how to add this in - I’ve seen it on other anatomy articles, looks good!

4) acronyms: I take the point; there’s an awful lot of fairly repetitive artery name acronyms. I’m quite happy to go through and spell these out in the main body of the text, though I wonder if you feel it would be acceptable to leave them as acronyms in the table? (just as an update - I took out the majority of the acronyms, which then made the table look oddly inconsistent in style, so I removed the acronyms from the table too.)

Thanks, I think that is a lot easier to read for the lay reader. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:56, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

5) images: Yes, finding the perfect image to illustrate leptomenigeal collaterals that is not limited by copyright has proved a considerable challenge. I settled on the arterial supply of the brain as a rough analogue. Although there are more directly relevant images available in peer reviewed articles, I found myself limited by the need to not plagiarise. Also, my art skills are sadly lacking to be able to produce anything remotely visually interesting! I’m at a loss, but if you have any suggestions I’m all ears.

Good point. I assume you've looked on WikiCommons to see if there are any suitable images (sometimes it requires a bit of trawling but can be very satisfying). If there's no suitable images then I'd ask you at least improve the captions. The images should have a focus on, and show some link to, leptomeningeal collaterals and that should be highlighted in the captions. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:56, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks again!

Drtomriddington (talk) 10:30, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome! I look forward to your edits. Thanks for your continued work on the article! --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:56, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Update:  failed

This review has now been open a month, which I think is an adequate amount of time. I think this is an excellent article but unfortunately it doesn't meet some areas of the good article criteria (particularly lead and images), which I'm more than certain it can do with a few additional edits. @Drtomriddington I'm happy to re-review when the above are addressed to expedite things if you renominate in the future. Good luck and thanks for your contributions! --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:16, 3 September 2019 (UTC)