Talk:Mammalian kidney/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Maxim Masiutin (talk · contribs) 11:18, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

General considerations on style

The article conforms to the general rules and requirements stipulated at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles except where noted otherwise below. The article should be clearly written, in good prose, with correct spelling and grammar.

Lead section

The lead section should be shortened from 5 paragraphs to 4 according to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section. Quote: "its length should be commensurate with that of the article, but is normally no more than four paragraphs". However, given that the length should be commensurate, these 5 paragraphs can be rearranged to 4 without decreasing the lenghth.

Correct article structure

According to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles, there should be the following sections, with possible subsecitons.

• Structure (including a description of location and size, course, insertions and attachments. Possible subsections for blood supply, lymphatic drainage and nerve supply if these are complex enough. If covered on the same page, subsections may be devoted to individual substructures)
  • Variations (if appropriate) -- This section would have been useful
  • Development (discussing the embryological/foetal and early-life development of the structure. May be included as a subsection in "Structure", especially for minor anatomical structures) -- Should be a subsection of "Structure" unless there are other reasons not to do so, preferably explained at the talk page
  • Microanatomy or Histology (where appropriate) -- Such section should be added or explained at the talk page on why it is not appropriate
• Function or Physiology (as appropriate)
• Clinical significance (discussing related diseases, medical associations with the structure, and use in surgery) -- No such section
• Society and culture (which may be excluded in minor anatomical structures) -- No such section
• History (describing the structure and the etymology of the word. Etymology may be included as a separate subsection, if sufficient information exists) -- No such section
• Other animals (which may include comparative anatomy for discussing non-mammalian anatomy, i.e. which organs do have non-mammalian organisms doing the same function as mammalian kidney) -- No such section

Target audience

The target audience seems to be for a general reader and the text it looks good for my eyes.

On references

Each paragraph should ends with a citation, most (if not all) citations are reliable.

On substance

The article broadly covers the topic without unnecessary digressions.

On neutrality

The article is written from the neutral point of view.

On stability

The article is be stable, with no ongoing edit wars.

On image use policy

The article complies with image use policy.

Copyright

The article has no obvious copyright violations.

Conclusion

The article is partially compliant.

Recusal

After I concluded that the article is partially compliant and put the article on hold for about seven days to allow time for issues to be fixed, the nominee participating in as a reviewer in a GA review on the article that I nominated on Russian Wikipedia expressed opinion against my article to be awarded the GA status: ru:Википедия:Кандидаты_в_хорошие_статьи/16_ноября_2023#Против_(Обходной_путь_биосинтеза_андрогенов)

Therefore, I no longer able to continue reviewing this article on Mammalian kidney to avoid possible influence of personal bias on the quality of review. The new circusmances happened after I provided my opinion, and those circumstances suggest that I should declare a recourse to remove my from participation in this GA review to avoid a conflict of interest. I hereby pass it to different a reviewer on queue; since there is no separate procedure for this, I will do that via the established procedure of requesting second opinion.