Talk:Organ transplantation in China/GA2

GA Reassessment

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

I was hoping that the main editors of the article would see my point and agree to rename the article. Instead, here is my "Good Article" review, as recommended by SilkTork:-

1a. The prose is clear. The grammar and spelling are fine.

1b. The lead section is too long for the length of the whole article.

2. The article is accurate and fairly well-referenced, with good in-line citations. (The article would benefit from references to peer-reviewed medical journals such as this letter by Jiefu Huang to the Lancet, and these, but these are not required for GA status.)

3a. The article does not address the main aspects of the topic. The brief "Background" section should actually be the mainstay of the article. Information should include the numbers of different organ types, the largest hospitals where these are performed, common indications for different organ transplants, survival following transplant, complication rates, drug regimes used, and how these factors contrast with the West.

3b. The article is strongly focussed on the practice of illegal/unethical harvesting. It applies undue weight and is inappropriate for the article. This needs to be drastically reduced and/or spun-off into its own article.

4. The article is neutral.

5. Well, we do seem to have a content dispute, although we aren't engaged in an edit war.

6. The illustrations are appropriate for a GA.

Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This seems a bit of an awkward way to discuss, the article itself definitely qualifies for good article, but I agree with Axl that it should be either renamed or split. --WS (talk) 10:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment - I'll likely have more to say later, but one point: this article is well over 15,000 characters (not counting the lead or the references), and thus per WP:LEAD should and does have a 2-3 paragraph lead. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is an individual assessment. As there has been prior discussion on this matter among those involved, and there was no agreement that the article did not meet GA criteria, this should be a community assessment. Please close this and open a community assessment which will bring in a wider range of people - most importantly, people who have not previously been involved. SilkTork *^YES! 13:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When it is brought before a community assessment, I might have some comments too. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 14:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]