Talk:Osteogenesis imperfecta/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Vaticidalprophet (talk · contribs) 11:03, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Happy to pick this up. You've done a lot of good work on this that I've watched occasionally from WT:MED, and a quick skim leaves me with a positive opinion. Apologies if I take some time to circle back with a review and bring it to completion; punctuality isn't always my best quality these days, but I'm hoping to get to this quickly. Vaticidalprophet 11:03, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Starting to get to this now, Psiĥedelisto. Broadly speaking, this is good work. My notes are mostly about the complexities of writing medical articles for broad audiences. For topics someone cares a lot about and knows a lot about, it can be difficult to get into the right headspace of writing for people with very little background knowledge (I struggle with the balance myself).

Early notes:

• There are several places where you delve into aside topics in the article's body that might be better presented as footnotes. The mention of the OIEDS1 mutation under Orthopedic stands out to me here -- this is significant to some readers, but not most, and is placed in parentheses. It might be better as a {{NoteFoot}}. (I recommend the more distinctive footnote shape of NoteFoot over something like efn, because you're already using a fairly complex citation style and it stands out much more prominently against the citation numbers, which readers tend to mentally skip.) Similarly, although I understand why the caption is as long as it is and why one might find cutting parts from it to be cutting important detail, some of it (the genetic background and the reason for the low contrast) are mainly relevant to a more technical subset of readers than the archetypal "person whose kid was just diagnosed"/"first year med student" audience; these might be better placed in footnotes.
• In the table of types, you switch from placing the hover-for-Arabic-numerals in the table itself for the clinical types, to placing it in a later list for the genetic types. Is there any reason for this switch?

Will return with more, although no significant complaints. Sorry about the wait (both present and future) -- getting to all kinds of things. Vaticidalprophet 12:01, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

ping Psiĥedelisto again, the last ping might not have gone through Vaticidalprophet 16:28, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Vaticidalprophet, thanks for picking up this review and thanks for the reminder to circle back. It did go through, I've been kinda busy and none of the concerns were major, I looked into the {{NoteFoot}} template the day you sent your message but I'm primarily a WP:VE editor so unfortunately a lot of it has gone over my head; the citation style in my articles is primarily chosen to be the most VE-compatible, although when I came to this one it already had an established style which I worked with rather than against. Can you look at the use of notes in 2channel, which I also authored, and tell me if that's what you mean you want to see? The reason for the Arabic numerals on hover not being there for genetic types is because they aren't explained in the table, but rather in the list. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 17:14, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

---

@Vaticidalprophet:—I think I've managed everything you've asked for so far as of revision 1061168046. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 02:05, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

That's looking good! Given the wait, will try to have things wrapped up by...the end of the week, to give an internal deadline, assuming the holidays don't derail that. Also seeing about getting another pair of eyes on the article to give some further comments, given its length. I'm broadly positive about it, though.

My main comment for now, I think, is that there are some very short subsections under "Signs and symptoms". Assuming further expansion isn't possible (as the article is currently 7330 words, it may not be), it may be worth seeing if an alternative way to present the information that doesn't split it up so thoroughly is warranted. For instance, the subheadings might not be necessary given that the focus of each paragraph is relatively clear, and the sections they're broken out to so short. Just something to see what ways of presenting the information work best. Vaticidalprophet 02:16, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

@Vaticidalprophet: I combined some of the body systems with marginal (well, infrequent but severe when they do occur) impacts from OI to one section. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 13:25, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi again, Psiĥedelisto! Sorry about the wait, I've been spot-checking sources (spot-checks check out okay). I think I'm happy to pass this at GA level. If I recall correctly, you want to take the article to FAC in the future. The GA-FA jump for medical articles is large, so I'm leaving some important notes on that before passing:

• WP:MEDDATE is taken very strictly at FAC. There are a number of 10+ year old sources in this article that would raise flags. I strongly recommend reviewing the older sources pre-FAC and seeing how replaceable they are.
• Similarly, FAC is less sympathetic than GAN to "underresearched disorders may need to use more primary sourcing than for better-understood conditions to have coherent/high-quality articles". (My own medical FAC failed for this reason.) This is a tricky problem to solve when writing on those subjects; I ended up concluding I don't particularly want to do medical FACs in the future. A few sources fall into both 'primary' and 'old', e.g. reference 37, which is a primary source from 2000.
• Some parts of the History section might be deemed too speculative at FAC (e.g. retrospective diagnosis of historical figures), especially cited to general-population rather than medical sources.

Those are the most obvious "okay at GA but not FA" points. Ultimately, though, I think this is okay at GA, and I'm happy to pass it. Vaticidalprophet 11:52, 5 January 2022 (UTC)