Talk:Andersen–Tawil syndrome/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Canada Hky (talk · contribs) 00:02, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello! I am happy to review this article for GA status. I will go through and make some comments as I read, and then will run through the checklist at the end, to make sure I haven't missed anything. Canada Hky (talk) 00:02, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Initial comments

 * No copyvio issues.
 * Images all look good.
 * In the lead - can you explicitly call out the triad of diagnostic findings? The last sentence refers to the triad, but I had to go back and piece together what it was - something similar to the first sentence of the signs and symptoms section. ✅
 * Sub out "mutation" for "variant" or "pathogenic variant". ✅
 * In the "Cause" section, "mutation" is linked well after its first usage - is there a specific reason for this decision? ✅
 * For the table in the "Cause" section - while the abbreviation 'ATS' is pretty easy to guess - it isn't defined in the article. ✅
 * In the "Diagnosis" section - the text says "if 2/3 criteria are met", but there are 4 different criteria listed. ✅
 * There is inconsistency between "long qt syndrome" and "Long QT syndrome" - I would suggest the former, as it isn't a proper noun, but it should definitely be consistent. ✅
 * Reference 12 should have an access date. ✅

I will update if I find anything else. Please let me know if there are any questions. I am going to put the article on hold for now. If you think you will need more than the standard 7 days, just let me know. Canada Hky (talk) 00:23, 15 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks Canada Hky. I actioned all the points you have raised above - thanks for spotting those errors.  Anything else?  PeaBrainC (talk) 09:02, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Checklist

 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall: Thanks for the opportunity to review this article. It was easy to read, focused and comprehensive!
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall: Thanks for the opportunity to review this article. It was easy to read, focused and comprehensive!
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall: Thanks for the opportunity to review this article. It was easy to read, focused and comprehensive!
 * Pass/Fail: