Talk:Malaria/GA3
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: LT910001 (talk · contribs) 23:00, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I'll take this review. I haven't had any part in editing or creating this article. Any other editors are welcome to contribute. LT90001 (talk) 23:00, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- Note. I've noticed that there are a lot of malaria-related articles and it's quite hard to navigate. I've just created and added Template:Malaria to this page and other relevant pages in this regard, but I haven't made any other edits to the page. LT90001 (talk) 00:51, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Overall this should be a quick and easy pass.
GA summary
[edit]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. |
Yes. Minor fixes suggested below, but nothing preventing promotion. | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. |
Yes. | |
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. |
For the most part. One or two uncited sections and an image I have mentioned below. | |
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). |
See above. | |
2c. it contains no original research. |
See above. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. |
Certainly. | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). |
Yes | |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. |
Yes | |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. |
Yes | |
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. |
Checked. One or two flags (noted below) but nothing preventing nomination. | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. |
Very relevant. | |
7. Overall assessment. |
An excellent article. |
Specific Comments
[edit]Lede, Signs & symptoms Done
|
---|
|
Complications
[edit]- Sentence "Possible causes include ... severe anaemia. " is very technical and inconsistent with the easy-to-read language of the rest of the article. Suggest reword.
- Cerebral malaria is mentioned in both complications and signs and symptoms sections.
Lifecycle
[edit]- The first half is very easy to read, the second half is difficult to follow.
- Suggest first instance of "merozoite" be wikilinked.
- Suggest new paragraph here: "Other merozoites develop into immature gametes" and then reword like the first half. This part is difficult to follow! (In fact I would go so far to say, the first half is one of the better representations of the malaria lifecycle I've read, so I'd love if the second half was that clear and easy to read)
- I wikilinked merozoite earlier, added a paragraph break, and reworded like so. Is it better? Sasata (talk) 23:24, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- Much better! LT90001 (talk) 00:45, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- I wikilinked merozoite earlier, added a paragraph break, and reworded like so. Is it better? Sasata (talk) 23:24, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- Recurrent malaria: bracketed term not needed here: "reappear (recur) "
- I kept recur and removed reappear, as the former term appears in the following sentence. Sasata (talk) 05:13, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- Pathophysiology
- One of the characteristic features of malaria infection, which you have mentioned earlier, is the reliability of the tertian and quaternian fever cycles. The putative mechanism for this should be mentioned.
- Most sources I've seen do not discuss this, and many suggest that the classic presentation of predictably recurring chills and fever is highly variable, so I'm thinking we shouldn't dwell on the details too much in this broad overview article. Sasata (talk) 18:39, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- This paragraph "Although the red blood cell surface adhesive proteins " is quite specific and I'm not sure what the relevance is. Suggest move to biology section?
- Trimmed this paragraph, it's already covered in the daughter article. Sasata (talk) 05:09, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Genetic Resistance
[edit]Genetic Resistance Done
|
---|
|
Diagnosis
[edit]- "Approximately 30% of people ". This group is unspecified. Do you mean "people infected in the last (week)"?
- This sentence has been removed. Sasata (talk) 18:45, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- "the presentation" -> "of symptoms"
- Added. Sasata (talk) 20:37, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- "which might be elicited by any of the following: ... peripheral blood leukocyte count.[3]" is quite technical and medical. Suggest reword.
- How does this sound? Sasata (talk) 20:37, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- Much better. LT910001 (talk) 09:31, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- How does this sound? Sasata (talk) 20:37, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- Classification section is out of place; suggest this list be transferred to a table and moved up to the 'signs and symptoms' section.
- I think this section was formatted this way by Jmh649 to better conform to WP:MEDMOS. Doc, do you have any objections to LT90001's suggestion? Sasata (talk) 20:53, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- I'm happy to leave the section where it is, but the list stands out like a sore thumb in comparison to the high quality discursive form of the rest of the article. LT910001 (talk) 09:31, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- I think this section was formatted this way by Jmh649 to better conform to WP:MEDMOS. Doc, do you have any objections to LT90001's suggestion? Sasata (talk) 20:53, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Prevention
[edit]- Should 'vector control' mention the use of spraying mosquito-infected swamps? I believe this was one of the key reasons that the Americas, in particular North America, controlled the spread of malaria.
- It used to be in the article, but was removed as it is a (mostly) historical method for mosquito control. This information can be found in the history daughter article, and in mosquito control. Sasata (talk) 05:31, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
- This paragraph "Methods used to prevent malaria include medications, ... it could become re-established if conditions revert to a combination that favours the parasite's reproduction.[42]"
- Does not seem to be supported by the source
- This paragraph "Methods used to prevent malaria include medications, ... it could become re-established if conditions revert to a combination that favours the parasite's reproduction.[42]"
- Could you be more specific as to what you think is not supported by the source? If you think it's necessary, I can break the reference into short citations and cite each sentence more specifically with page numbers. Sasata (talk) 18:26, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- "favours" is not consistent with the use of American English.
- Made the spelling consistent British English and added a template for this on the talk page. Sasata (talk) 18:26, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- Source mentions difficulty in removing from low population-density areas.
- Added one reason. Sasata (talk) 18:26, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- Suggest add "high anopheles mosquito population density" to make clear this is not all mosquitoes.
- Done. Sasata (talk) 18:26, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- In conclusion, needs a re-write
Medications
[edit]Medications Done
|
---|
|
Prognosis, Epidemiology, History
[edit]Prognosis, Epidemiology, History Done
|
---|
Epidemiology
History[edit]
Economic impact
|
Images
[edit]- Some possible copyright flags on images, eg File:Ronald_Ross.jpg and File:Artemisia annua West Virginia.jpg, but one must assume good faith.
- File:Malaria_fever.svg this image has no citations so cannot be verified and/or is OR.
- I've removed this. I think it's useful, however, and will try to recreate with sourced data before this article goes to FAC. Sasata (talk) 19:14, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, if sourced it would have been a very useful image. LT90001 (talk) 00:46, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- I've removed this. I think it's useful, however, and will try to recreate with sourced data before this article goes to FAC. Sasata (talk) 19:14, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- It would be nice, but is certainly not a requirement of the GA review, if File:5901 lores.jpg could be replaced with a clearer image.
Conclusion
[edit]In conclusion, I would say this article is of very good quality. Kind regards, LT90001 (talk) 11:24, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- Thank-you kindly for taking on this review. I am currently vacationing in a different country, so internet access will be spotty, but I should be able to address your concerns within a few days. Sasata (talk) 15:18, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- No worries, there is no rush. Have a lovely vacation, LT90001 (talk) 09:55, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- Thank-you kindly for taking on this review. I am currently vacationing in a different country, so internet access will be spotty, but I should be able to address your concerns within a few days. Sasata (talk) 15:18, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- Question
- LT90001, how many sources have you checked to make sure they are verified? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 17:01, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- See here, for example. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 17:10, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for your attention. On every review, as well as completing a survey of all the sources used as they are reported in the article, I check as reading the summaries of about 1/3-1/4 of all citations, paying particular attention to assertions or contentious statements. If the abstracts do not support the text, then I seek a full text article and the relevant section. LT90001 (talk) 02:16, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
With the changes that have been made, I would be happy to promote this article to GA status at this time, but will wait several days in the hope that the few remaining quality-based concerns are addressed. LT910001 (talk) 09:37, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
I find this article to match the GARC in being well-written and broad, neutral and well-sourced, and without any outstanding issues. I have updated the table above and will make the required changes to promote to GA status shortly. Well done, thanks for bringing this article back up to GA standards, and I wish you well on your wiki-travels. LT910001 (talk) 01:02, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks kindly for your review! Sasata (talk) 01:40, 18 October 2013 (UTC)