Talk:Cerebrospinal fluid/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Kostas20142 (talk · contribs) 14:00, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks very good at first glance, I will gladly provide a review --Kostas20142 (talk) 14:00, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, Kostas20142, I will address your concerns within the next few days :). --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:43, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kostas20142;

Done --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:38, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.	Well-written.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Article complies with all relevant manual of style guidelines.
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.	references layout guideline is followed
	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).	All in-line citations are from reliable sources.
	2c. it contains no original research.	The article includes no original research
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	No copyright violations found.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	All significant aspects of the topic are covered sufficiently.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Article's size is appropriate. It stays focused on the topic
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No neutrality problems found
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No recent edit warring or significant dispute found
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.	All images are properly tagged and attributed.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions
	7. Overall assessment.

comments

I see that a "citation needed" template is still pending. Could you please find a source to fix this??
- Done --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:38, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

other modifications

"CSF has also been seen to drain into lymphatic vessels,[16] particularly those surrounding the nose via drainage along the olfactory nerve through the cribriform plate; however the pathway and extent are currently not known,[1] but may involve CSF flow along some cranial nerves and be more prominent in the neonate." → "CSF has also been seen to drain into lymphatic vessels,[16] particularly those surrounding the nose via drainage along the olfactory nerve through the cribriform plate. The pathway and extent are currently not known,[1] but may involve CSF flow along some cranial nerves and be more prominent in the neonate." I believe that this syntax would be better.
- Done good point. --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:38, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]