Talk:Hemorrhoid/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tea with toast (talk · contribs) 01:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Final review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Well done! Please see further comments below.

Additional comments

After reviewing this article, I am pleased to find that it contains an appropriate scope and depth, exhibits accessible prose, and is well researched. One small note to contributors – when filling out the citation template, do not place a period at the end of titles, because the template will automatically put one on, and this will result in a double period. (Don't worry, I removed them).

One thing to add might be more information on thrombosed cases. I feel like there might be more information to present there. Along with that, I think it would be helpful to present information about adverse events, or what can happened if one goes without medical treatment. Like it or not, people are going to read this in regards to their own health and to determine if they should seek treatment.

One other thing that I would change is the last sentence in the lead. For some reason the sentence "Outcomes are usually good." irritates me, and I think it is just because it is too short, vague, and non-descriptive. A more meaningful sentence might be "Complications are rare", but that of course is more pertinent to the earlier sentences in the paragraph and not the immediate sentence before it. I'm not exactly sure how it should be changed, but I think it is worth taking a look at, especially if you want to take this up to FA. Happy editing! --Tea with toast (話) 03:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason why no content from the #History section is summarised within the lead (and also why that section isn't presented earlier in the article by way of chronology)? Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 05:14, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The usually ordering of articles is described here WP:MEDMOS Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:19, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]