Talk:Leukemia/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ojay123 ^{(Talk•E-Mail•Contribs•Sandbox)(Respond on my talk page!} 22:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Due to the size and scope of these problems, I will put the article on hold to fix the following issues:

• Citations are probably some of the largest and most important tasks in getting GA status. For example, there are a few banners in the article that say the section needs more citations. These have no place for these in a Good Article. Below are a few specifics:
  • There are no references of any kind for the Signs and symptoms section. I checked the closest reference (#10) and it doesn't seem to give any information about symptoms, thus implying that the section in question is without any sources.
  • The sections on Diagnosis and Treatment seriously lack verifiable sources; in the case of the Treatment section, it's sources boil down to citing the respective articles on the various types of Leukemia.
  • The "Causes" section has several "citation needed" tags on it; to gain GA status these should not be present.
  • The "Research" section, obviously a very important section, doesn't have a single source.
  • The "History" section doesn't have any sources either.
  • The "Prognosis" section also does not have sources cited.
• Expansion
  • Before the article is ready to be a Good Article, tags like the one in Diagnosis should no longer be applicable. This section has to either be expanded to a reasonable length or it should be removed. This is covered in the articles on different types, so perhaps it is not necessary. I suggest going into detail about the different types of Leukemia and how they are diagnosed.
  • I would suggest expanding the history section with respect to the advancements in research. Also, the various types of Leukemia that are described in depth earlier in the article could also be mentioned in the history section (when they were discovered, etc.). Some of the articles on the different types actually include such historical context.
  • The prognosis section should have much more information and detail. In fact, the articles on different types of Leukemia actually have far more details than this section does! One way to improve the quality of the prognosis section is talk about it with respect to the different forms of Leukemia. It says that it depends on the type, and the information about prognosis for the types are on their respective articles.

It appears to me that all of the problems that were preventing this article from attaining GA status have been corrected, so why has it not yet become a good article? Immunize (talk) 20:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Further comments

Per a request by Ojay123, I'll help in concluding this review. Looking over the article, it's good to see the majority of the issues have been addressed. Before the article should be considered a GA, there are a few other issues that should be addressed.

Needs citations

• "Acute forms of leukemia are the most common forms of leukemia in children."
• "Chronic leukemia mostly occurs in older people, but can theoretically occur in any age group."
• "It sometimes occurs in younger adults, but it almost never affects children."
• The majority of the "Signs and symptoms" section is unsourced.
• "Around ten years after Virchow and Bennett's findings, pathologist Franz Ernst Christian Neumann found that one deceased leukemia patient's bone marrow was colored "dirty green-yellow" as opposed to the normal red."

Other issues

• The lead should be expanded to better summarize the article. For an article of this length, it should be three or four paragraphs. Try and touch on each of the sections and expanding it won't be that difficult. If you need further clarification, please see WP:LEAD.
• If possible could another image or two be added to the article?
• The classification section goes straight into the types of leukemia, but there is no initial mention of what it is or that it's a cancer. A brief sentence or two at the beginning would help lead readers into the topic if they skip the lead.
• Why is "T-cell prolymphocytic leukemia" and "Large granular lymphocytic leukemia" in the classification section not italicized like the prior examples?
• "Finally, the red blood cell deficiency leads to anemia, which may cause dyspnea and pallor." Single sentences shouldn't stand alone. To improve the flow of the article, either expand on this or incorporate it into another relevant paragraph. Fix the other occurrences within the article.
• Throughout the article, the citations are either directly after the punctuation or spaced afterwards. To remain consistent, pick one style and stick with it.
• "A lymph node biopsy can be performed..." A link should be added for lymph node biopsy for those unfamiliar with the term.
• "Finally, CT scans are rarely used to check lymph nodes in the chest." Are CT scans always used along with the other methods or is it an alternate way of checking? It would also be best to remove "Finally". Maybe, "CT scans can be used to check lymph nodes in the chest, although this technique is rarely used." or something to that effect.
• "In general, most oncologists rely on combinations of drugs for the initial, induction phase..." Italics isn't necessary for induction or for "Consolidation and maintenance treatments" in the next sentence.
• "In 2000, approximately 256,000 children and adults around the world developed a form of leukemia, and 209,000 died from it." Any more recent statistics available?
• "The tests were successful, and some of the patients are still living to this day." This should be reworded as it can be difficult to track. Perhaps state that the patients continued to live decades after the tests.
• Can the history section be expanded further. Ending at 1962 does not cover all of the breakthroughs and better understanding of the disease in the last few decades. Just to reach GA, a sentence or two from each decade at at least would be helpful.
• "In general research in the area of leukemia can be divided into two types of research: Clinical/Translational research and Basic Science research." The two types of research don't have to be capitalized.
• There are a few dabs, take a look and make sure they couldn't directly go to the specific articles.

Good work on the article, it is an interesting read. These issues shouldn't be too difficult to implement. Sourcing is probably the most challenging, but with the abundance of available sources on the topic, it shouldn't be too difficult to add a few more. If you have any questions on the above issues, please let me know and I'll be happy to clarify. Let me know on my talk page when you have finished addressing the above issues and I'll take another look before passing the article as a GA. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:13, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

It's been a few weeks and the above concerns haven't been touched. Does this need to be failed? Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I was planning on doing it this weekend, but might as well do it now since no progress has been made. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

GA failed

Since the above issues were not all completely addressed, I have failed the article according to the requirements of the GA criteria. If the rest of the points are ever addressed, consider nominating again at WP:GAN. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. If you disagree with this assessment, you can seek an alternate opinion at Good article reassessment. If you have any questions let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)