Talk:Roberts syndrome/GA1
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Lots of issues. My main concern is that there are so many lists that could easily be turned into prose
- There are only six footnotes in the whole article, and a few improperly-formatted references at the bottom.
- The third paragraph of "Heredity" is unsourced entirely.
- The "symptoms" section would probably better as prose. "Symptoms include x, y and z." No need to describe just what x, y, and z are since you'll be linking to the articles on each symptom anyway.
- "Diagnosis" and "Differential diagnosis" would also be better off in prose.
- "Cytogenetic testing" is unsourced.
- No need to use "are listed below" in the article at all.
- "Clinical description" is probably better off in prose as well.
- The prose is very choppy and disorganized throughout. I don't know much about things medical, but I get the feeling that this is barely even scratching the surface of what could be covered.
This article, in my opinion, has a very long way to go before it could reach GA. I would call it start-class at best. Reviewer: Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)