Talk:Nerve compression syndrome/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: FloridaMan21 (talk · contribs) 23:22, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk · contribs) 02:29, 16 August 2024 (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.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	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).	The syndromes section is almost completely unsourced. Because of this I am not going to take the time to individually verify other sources. If this issue is fixed I will verify the other sources.
	2c. it contains no original research.	For the same reasons as 2b.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	The second paragraph in Pathophysiology is plagiarized from "Biological Response of Peripheral Nerves to Loading: Pathophysiology of Nerve Compression Syndromes and Vibration Induced Neuropathy". National Academies Press (US). 1999.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	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.
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.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The infobox image and caption don't seem super relevant. I found several more relevant images on commons. I recommend changing the infobox image to something more relevant such as the image I included below.
	7. Overall assessment.	Based on the copyright issues and unsourced section I think this article fails to meet the criteria. If these issues are fixed I would be happy to do a full review in the future however I do not feel it is worth my time to do so with the current issues.