Talk:Brugada syndrome/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Natureium (talk · contribs) 16:25, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've never done a GAN review before, so please let me know (politely) if I'm doing anything wrong.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
Suggested changes:

Lead: new mutation -> new genetic mutation : Done PeaBrainC (talk) 20:59, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Causes: disturbed -> disrupted? : Done PeaBrainC (talk) 20:59, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know if " known as loss of function mutations." fits in the paragraph : Done PeaBrainC (talk) 20:59, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Does the term "overlap syndrome" apply? The article on overlap syndrome only describes it in the context of autoimmune connective tissue disorders.: Not done Overlap syndrome is certainly a correct term to describe, for example, the phenotype of Brugada and Long QT 3 syndrome in the same patient, or Brugada and ARVC. I appreciate the current article for overlap syndrome doesn't explicitly mention this and I will try to add a paragraph to that article in due course PeaBrainC (talk) 20:59, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have now amended the article on Overlap syndrome to better reflect that this term is used to refer to more than just autoimmune conditions. PeaBrainC (talk) 17:19, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

in SCN5A that reduced -> reduces : Done PeaBrainC (talk) 20:59, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mechanism: heart racing -> rapid heart rate : Done PeaBrainC (talk) 17:19, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Diagnosis: link to ST elevation : Done PeaBrainC (talk) 17:19, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Choose either Genetic testing or Causes/genetics to mention incomplete penetrance : Done PeaBrainC (talk) 17:19, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"occurring as a bystander" is unnecessary and somewhat confusing : Done PeaBrainC (talk) 17:19, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Treatment: per WP:EL, external links do not belong in the body : Done PeaBrainC (talk) 17:19, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

History: see in -> seen in : Done PeaBrainC (talk) 17:19, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
lead to competing theories -> led to : Done PeaBrainC (talk) 17:19, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
Sources # 9, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 25, 28, 39, 41, 42, are primary sources, but are mainly used for background information

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Hi @Natureium:, thanks for reviewing this article. It's only my 2nd GAN but to my inexperienced eyes looks like you've done a good job. I will get on with making the amendments you have suggested and mark them as done on this page as I go. It may take a few days - busy times in the real world! PeaBrainC (talk) 09:48, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good! Congrats! Natureium (talk) 21:50, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]