Talk:Intramuscular injection/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: Bibeyjj (talk · contribs) 21:02, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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:
· · ·

Comments

Overall, the article is really good. The only major issue is the lack of inline citations for certain sections. I have given a fail to 2a because the citation coverage is not as comprehensive as required for GA status, but this can soon be rectified. I have given a fail to 2c because, without the inline citations, it can only be assumed that the content is original research (although it probably is not). I would like to thank Berchanhimez for his excellent edits so far, and I hope that he will soon be able to resolve the minor issues raised. Thanks! Bibeyjj (talk) 21:34, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

The current references are very good. However, there are large sections of text that remain unreferenced (such as the lead section, and the "Risks and complications" section). This needs to be rectified, but I imagine that it will not be too difficult. It would also be appreciated to have inline citations for the lead section as well. Bibeyjj (talk) 21:19, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead: I try to avoid citing things in the lead specifically if I can for two reasons - one, because I have a very liberal view of MOS:LEADCITE and thus unless a specific piece of information is either not cited in the body (in the way presented) or is likely challenged, I tend to avoid it. The second reason I avoid it when I can is that it helps me ensure that I am not adding information in a lead which isn't already present in the body - if I feel the need to cite something in the lead, I always go try and ensure it's cited in the body first. I am happy to add citations if you feel any particular parts of the lead need citations, but would appreciate if you could point out what you feel should be re-cited in the lead - you can feel free to do this either here or with {{cn}} tags or edit window comments in the article as you prefer and I'll accept your judgement as to if it would be beneficial/necessary. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:52, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Risks and complications: I should have time to work on this tonight and I'll ensure that there's an inline citation at the end of every grouping of information that's cited - and I won't leave more than two sentences in a row before citing them. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:52, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An update - User:Bibeyjj - I've gone through and done some work on more than just risks and complications. If you think any specific information still needs an inline citation please feel free to "call it out" here and I'll be more than able to do such. Thanks again. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 04:53, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Images

The images included are relevant, well-captioned, and formatted correctly. I would appreciate an image for either the "Contraindications" or "Risks and complications" section. However, this is not strictly essential, and the current images are suitable, giving good coverage. Bibeyjj (talk) 21:27, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I unfortunately can't begin to think of an image for the contraindications section - it's quite hard to find images specific enough to an article to be relevant for what's almost always a short section anyway. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:52, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
After much searching, I finally found something I think helps provide an image for risks/complications - I exhausted everything I could think of to try and find an image actually of a reaction to a vaccine or other IM injection and unfortunately couldn't find a free image anywhere on the web (outside of Commons). Hopefully that helps. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:52, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

General

First, thanks for the review. I'll do my best to respond in a decent time frame - I surprisingly (coincidentally?) have a tad bit of free time to work on this tonight but with COVID spikes my real life has been hectic and sometimes unpredictable - I will update you as to my progress as I go. I've done what I can for the images, and will work on the citations tonight if I can or over the next few days - again it'd help greatly if you'd be able to point out any specific places you feel need more citations, but if not I'll do what I can and then have you take another look and see if it's acceptable. Thanks. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:52, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Changes

Hi Berchanhimez! Thank you for your most recent edits. I completely agree with your interpretation of referencing the lead paragraph - as you say, everything is mentioned somewhere else in the article with a good reference. You have added good references where they were needed, so I have passed 2a and 2c. I also appreciate you looking for new images, which are really helpful. As such, this is a well-deserved Good Article.

Many congratulations! Bibeyjj (talk) 08:19, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.