Talk:Diaphragmatic rupture/GA2

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

Reviewer: Bibeyjj (talk · contribs) 11:19, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Opening Summary
Hi ! I'm happy to take on the review of Diaphragmatic rupture. I remember reviewing and promoting the article Urinothorax which you nominated and worked on in February.

I will be using Template:GABox to keep track of general progress. A comment on each criteria, and whether it has been passed or failed, will be put in relevant sections below. I will aim to respond to queries as fast as I can, although my availability of free time varies significantly through the week. Thanks! Bibeyjj (talk) 11:19, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

1a
Hold. The prose is generally very readable to a broad audience, with good simplifications of certain terminology. The prose is not repetitive, and the spelling is perfect. There are a few queries raised below, primarily relating to grammar and clarity. Bibeyjj (talk) 19:12, 13 May 2021 (UTC)


 * ✅ aeschyIus (talk) 12:11, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Pass. Thank you for resolving these minor points - I'm sure that both of us are happy with the prose now! Bibeyjj (talk) 15:53, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

1b
Hold. The article mostly follows Manual of Style policies. There are a few minor queries to resolve with regards to the lead section and with some of the "footer" sections. Bibeyjj (talk) 20:35, 13 May 2021 (UTC)


 * ✅ - I removed all the inline citations in the lead except the one that cited number of statistical evidence. I also added a "see also" section. aeschyIus (talk) 12:16, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Pass. Thank you for resolving these queries thoughtfully. I agree with your choice to keep a reference for the statistic in the lead, and in your choice of "See also" linked articles. Bibeyjj (talk) 15:57, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

2a
Pass. All references are formatted in accordance with WP:LAYOUT. The correct templates for reference are used as far as I can see. None of the references are repeated. Bibeyjj (talk) 19:28, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

2b
Pass. All of the references are of a good quality. I am happy with the complete reliance on reliable academic journals and textbooks. There are a good number of review articles, which are used extensively. Bibeyjj (talk) 19:36, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

2c
Hold. The coverage of inline citations across the article is excellent. Some of the references are very hard to access, so are difficult to check. However, overall the validity of references is good. There are a few small queries to be resolved regarding how reference content is represented in the article. Bibeyjj (talk) 10:31, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Highly used sources (3 times or more): 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12

Well represented: 1, 2, 3 (b-d), 4 (a, l), 8, 9, 12, 13

Unable to check (trust are well represented): 4 (b-k, m-o), 5, 7, 10, 11


 * Bibeyjj, ✅ aeschyIus (talk) 18:24, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Pass. Thank you for resolving these queries of representation. Given that the references that have been checked are generally well represented, I am happy that reliability is good. Bibeyjj (talk) 18:46, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

2d
Hold. Whilst there may be more plagiarism, the detectors I have used have detected the following source which has been copied verbatim. This will need to be referenced, and the text reworded. Bibeyjj (talk) 20:09, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Update! I have looked at Talk:Diaphragmatic rupture/GA1 and noted that the previous reviewer believed the source to be a predatory journal that had copied Wikipedia. I will investigate. Bibeyjj (talk) 20:45, 13 May 2021 (UTC)


 * The text was added to Wikipedia mid-July 2008 by.
 * The journal article was published on 17 July 2017 by "Open Access Text" - as far as I can tell, this has received widespread suspicion across the academic community for predatory practices.

Based on this, I am happy that there is no plagiarism. I will ask if they wish to begin the cease and desist process at User talk:Delldot. Bibeyjj (talk) 20:54, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

3a
Hold. The article does very well at covering the major aspects of the topic. A few minor queries of clarity have been noted below. One other query I had was the apparent absence of information on "Other animals" - as the subject does occur in animals with diaphragms (all except fish), it would be worth including just a few sentences on animals. This is particularly as one of the radiographs is of a dog! Bibeyjj (talk) 20:42, 13 May 2021 (UTC)


 * @Bibeyjj, I improved the wording on 1 and 2, and explained 3. I was unable to find any decent sources on animals - they all discussed diaphragmatic hernia. aeschyIus (talk) 01:11, 18 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi ! Thank you for fully expanding on point 3 and for rewording the other statements. With regards to point 2, I found a reliable reference (https://doi.org/10.21037/atm.2018.05.27) that explains how high intrathoracic pressure (such as that caused by diaphragmatic rupture) raises right atrial pressure, reducing venous return and cardiac output - I wonder if you would consider this.


 * With regards to rupture in animals, I completely understand your point about the tendency for many sources to talk about diaphragmatic hernia rather than diaphragmatic rupture - I only found 3 talking about diaphragmatic rupture compared to many more talking about diaphragmatic hernia. If I may, I would point to a few references (Diagnosis: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-8261.2003.tb01276.x, Surgical Repair: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-5827.1990.tb00503.x) for you to consider. If this is too much of an ask then I am still happy to pass this criteria, but I think it is worthwhile to consider how to best improve scope (as diaphragmatic rupture does occur in animals). Bibeyjj (talk) 11:00, 18 May 2021 (UTC)


 * @Bibeyjj, is it ready for GA now? All the issues appear to have been addressed. aeschylus (talk) 15:20, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Pass. Thank you for the work you have put in which has broadened the scope of the article and improved on details. Bibeyjj (talk) 17:02, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

3b
Pass. The article follows WP:SUMMARY. The right level of medical detail is used for most of the article. The related condition diaphragmatic hernia is handled to the correct amount of detail. Bibeyjj (talk) 19:21, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

4
Pass. The prose follows WP:NPOV, using neutral language and handling topics well. The topic is not very controversial to begin with. Symptoms and treatments are balanced favourably based on importance. Bibeyjj (talk) 19:14, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

5
Pass. 2 reverted edits in article history, both from IP vandalism. The article has been stable for 4 weeks. Bibeyjj (talk) 11:52, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

6a
Pass. All 5 images use the correct license, and are used acceptably and legally. Bibeyjj (talk) 12:00, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

6b
Hold. All 5 images are supportive of the article. Images 2 and 3 would be better situated to the right hand side of the prose with the captions inside the box (the current captions are good) - the other images are well located. Image 2 (x-ray of a dog) would benefit from additions to the captions that clarify what the numbers mean, although this is not essential. Bibeyjj (talk) 19:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)


 * @Bibeyjj, I removed the gallery and added the image to the side. I removed the dog image and added File:PMC2739847_1749-7922-4-32-2.png aeschyIus (talk) 20:14, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Pass. Thank you for resolving these queries with images! Bibeyjj (talk) 09:30, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Concluding Summary
Pass. Hi ! Congratulations - Diaphragmatic rupture has passed Good Article Review. Thank you for the work you have put in to bring the article up to standard. Bibeyjj (talk) 17:08, 19 May 2021 (UTC)