Talk:Hepatic hydrothorax/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dracophyllum (talk · contribs) 05:55, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm happy to do this review, though I know little about the subject matter. Dracophyllum 05:55, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Review

a) don't need the cite in the lede

b) "The condition does not have any specific symptoms" to "The condition does not have any symptoms specific to it, but main symptoms.."  Done

c) The second para of the lede could include less very short sentences by using conjunctions

I'll do more in depth reviewing later, looks good so far Dracophyllum 06:47, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi both, I was just trawling through GAs associated with WP Medicine. I do not feel this article meets WP GA criteria, the main issues being comprehensiveness (two sections are sentences only), well written (article is quite technical, and I would recommend reading the first few parts of WP:MEDMOS about medical writing), and verifiability (there are some sections without citations). I also don't think ". "Diffrential Diagnosis of Hepatic Hydrothorax by 99mTc Sulfur Colloid Peritoneal Scintigraphy: Two Cases" meets WP:MEDRS. I'll have more to say if this review progresses further. That said, I acknowledge the significant effort Aeschylus has put in to this article (from scratch it looks like!). Tom (LT) (talk) 10:38, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Hey there @Dracophyllum. I was also scrolling through the GAN list for medicine and I’m inclined to agree with @Tom (LT) here. While I’m not as well-versed in WP:MEDMOS and WP:MEDRS, I do have to say that even based off purely a skim of the article, it doesn’t meet the criteria. Two of the sections are a sentence each, and not to mention that the section “Epidemology” is mispelled, which isn’t a big deal but I wanted to mention it. Searching purely off google and google scholar, there are a lot more sources that can be used. I wish you guys the best in writing it, I’m just putting in my two cents. While I’m not the best person to say this considering I’m a relatively new editor, I still wanted to chime in because I know this article has a lot of potential. —TheRibinator (talk) 19:28, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I cited the lede because it has a sentence that contained a number statistic. aeschylus (talk) 13:39, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: 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):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

I might fail this

Only 4 sources seems too few, even for a niche topic, and many sections aren't fleshed out enough. There are many, many more sources to be used: https://www.researchgate.net/search/publication?q=%22Hepatic%20hydrothorax%22, I'll get a fourth opinion, but may fail this sorry. Dracophyllum 23:37, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

That said, I'll give you some time (7 days enough?) to flesh it out a bit more and then I'll give it another look. Dracophyllum 23:44, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, in general, I am unaware of the GA criteria, but I am willing to work to get it to GA. aeschylus (talk) 01:04, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

@aeschylus The work you’ve done so far is good, a little too technical, but nevertheless good. I suggest looking over the GA/GAN criteria before nominating, as you are supposed to, to avoid things like this. The article has a lot of potential but in my personal opinion, does not meet GA status for a medical article. Of course, I’m not the right person to be saying this because I’m a relative newbie to editing, so take everything I say with a grain of salt. Always look at the criteria before doing something when this happens. —TheRibinator (talk) 03:30, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

@Dracophyllum, those were all case reports, which are unsuitable for medical articles here. Is that right? aeschylus (talk) 13:49, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

I can see 11,400 citations on google scholar, and agree with Dracophyllum regarding the need for some more sources in this article, particularly to meet the comprehensive criteria. Tom (LT) (talk) 17:45, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Have I improved the article? I made a start in removing technical language. What more can I do, and what do you suggest? aeschylus (talk) 21:33, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Next steps

@Aeschylus: I (and some others) previously suggested that more sources be added, as well as reducing the number of technical language, to improve the comprehensiveness and quality of this article. Neither of these have been achieved and so I will be failing it. Please continue working on this page, its nearly there, and submit it for GA again when you are ready. Using the sources cited in this article: https://www.uptodate.com/contents/hepatic-hydrothorax, may be useful. Dracophyllum 06:30, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi Tom and Dracophyllum, I have returned to editing. How can I further improve it (I have already done some edits to this page over the years, and it has more than four sources), and want to get it to GA status again. aeschylus (talk) 18:34, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Looking much better than I remember it. Great selection of much better quality sources. Hope that whatever brought you away from WP has now got better. Check out Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles#Writing for the wrong audience as it may help improve your medical writing, which has already got much better - what stands out in particular to me here is the use of 'cases' constantly (actually, these are human beings affected by this condition). There are still some parts of the article that I think need to be fleshed out and I am not sure but feel that there may also be some inaccuracies in the article and it doesn't read 100% right (for example, the choice of language - e.g. I would describe this as a 'condition' rather than a 'disease', or this statement: "medically accepted mechanism is that low albumin levels in blood reduce osmotic pressure and increase pressure in the azygos vein, causing it to leak plasma into the pleural cavity. The most accepted theory is that fluid originating from ascites travels through defects in the diaphragm into the pleural cavity" - perhaps you meant the first sentence to relate to ascites). Perhaps as at Wikipedia:MED if there is anyone who can scope out the article medically for you. Hope that helps, sorry I would be keen to contribute to this article but for the time pressures I have myself at my end. Cheers Tom (LT) (talk) 05:49, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for checking in! Yes, I have a renewed interest in the encyclopedia now, as I have more time and resources to contribute. I have addressed the simple concerns and will check the mechanisms to re-check the sentences. Looking at the error, yes, I thought something was wrong with it, but couldn't quite put my hand on what it was. Looking at the source, I have corrected that mistake. aeschylus (talk) 20:04, 21 December 2023 (UTC)