Talk:Wound/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Nominator: Justin.taylor27 (talk · contribs) 17:40, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk · contribs) 07:29, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Easily readable. Could use some more wikilinks but that is easily fixable.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The article doesn't follow the exact layout for medical conditions but I feel that it's appropriate for the topic. The only reason I'm not passing this criteria is because the Presentation section seems oddly formatted. I believe "workup" should be its own section as it's not really a part of the presentation.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Different citation styles are used throughout the article (vauthors and first/last are both used) however this could be easily fixed.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	There is unsourced statements throughout the article. I tagged the unsourced statements. Because of the amount of unsourced content, I did not manually verify each citation however I am happy to do so if the unsourced statements are fixed.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Unsourced portions.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	I didn't detect any obvious plagiarism with copyvio however I would need to check individual sources to confidently say there are no copyright issues here.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The research section is a bit off-topic and should either be expanded or removed.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	There is a clarification needed template on one of the images, I also feel that clustering all of the images together doesn't look great however this is a preference.
	7. Overall assessment.	Mostly failing due to the amount of unsourced material. I think the article has a lot of potential and if the unsourced sections were properly sourced and some other small changes were made it could fit criteria.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.