Talk:Corrupted Blood incident/GA1
GA Review[edit]
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Protonk (talk · contribs) 19:12, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
I will review this article. I have made five edits to the page, almost entirely all about 10 years ago. I do not consider that significant contribution. Protonk (talk) 19:12, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for your patience. This article is, in the main, well illustrated (such as it can be), stable, neutral, broad, verifiable, and well written. I have no major complaints which would stop me from passing it immediately. I will make another pass through the article to see if there are any things which I might want changed but would not want to change myself. If I find nothing I'll pass it. Protonk (talk) 16:50, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Ok. I've passed the article. I made one minor stylistic change while searching around for more significant concerns or ways that I could improve it. My only suggestion right now is that the lede be somewhat rebalanced to match the distribution of content in the article--obviously it should not be a fixed relationship to the sections lengths, but the last paragraph discussing epidemiological response to the incident deserves a little more space. That is not part of the GA criteria, just a suggestion as to improvement. Very good job, especially with the recent edits and improvements by GhostRiver. Thank you. Protonk (talk) 17:05, 22 June 2022 (UTC)