Talk:Renal tubular acidosis/GA1

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
This article is a little limited in scope as discussed on the talk page. Missing info on epidemiology. Very little is given in the history section.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those are both your own criticisms of the page-I'd be delighted if you could expand them (good luck with the epidemiology!). I'm not sure why you think that they mean that the article should lose it's good article status-it meets the criteria and everybody else seeemed to think it's pretty good (selected medicine portal article etc etc)

A good article is—

  1. Well-written:
         (a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct; and
         (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
  2. Factually accurate and verifiable:
         (a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;
         (b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;[2] and
         (c) it contains no original research.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
         (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
         (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.[4]
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:[5]
         (a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
         (b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]

I can't really see how it doesn't hit these criteria-what bothers you about it? FelixFelix ^talk 18:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is insufficiently broad in scope (no sections on epidemiology, diagnosis, or prognosis). Much of the topic is addressed in point form rather than prose. Also not particularly well organized. Trivia about Tin Tiny occurs in the main section of dRTA. So does not meet 1 or 3. Therefore will fail at this point in time. Once these points are addressed feel free to reapply.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]