Talk:Epidural administration/GA1

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

Reviewer: Bibeyjj (talk · contribs) 11:35, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Berchanhimez! I'm happy to take up the review for this article. Just from a general glance, it looks really good. I will try to complete this review in the next few days. Thanks! Bibeyjj (talk) 11:35, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Summary
Overall, this article is very good, with a good written style, good references, useful content, a neutral tone, edit stability, and helpful graphics. Given that most good medical procedure articles mention recovery (and this is part of the Medical Style Guide for procedures), I personally think that a dedicated section on recovery (duration, variations etc.) would be helpful. This is a minor change, and all its needs is a few sentences to outline it - some content on recovery times is already included in the article, just in other places. I certainly hope that these changes can be made soon. For now I have put the nomination on hold pending this minor change. Thanks! Bibeyjj (talk) 14:41, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Criterion 1
1a. Pass. Very good style of writing, which gives the right amount of detail for readers. Sentences are readable, with good grammar. Bibeyjj (talk) 12:00, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

1b. Pass. Excellently follows the WikiProject Medicine style guide for procedures. Follows generally agreed principles on organisation and syntax, including for headings. Bibeyjj (talk) 12:00, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Criterion 2
2a. Pass. Inline citations used correctly and fairly generously. A good number of references based on the amount of content. Bibeyjj (talk) 12:44, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

2b. Pass. Although everything is well sourced from scholarship, and all sources are reliable, I do feel that there is a slight overdependence on primary rather than secondary sources. This is only minor, but typically secondary sources are preferred for their more consensus-based ideas. Bibeyjj (talk) 12:44, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

2c. Pass. Nearly all content is well covered by inline citations, and is well researched from scholarship. There are a few places that could do with coverage by an inline citation, such as the various complications of bipuvacaine in "Medication-specific", and bolus content in "Use and removal", but these are minor issues for future referencing. Bibeyjj (talk) 12:44, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

2d. Pass. Content is well covered by inline citations, and so there can be no major copyright violations. Having checked a number of the sources, it is clear that referenced content is represented fairly and cited properly. Bibeyjj (talk) 12:44, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Criterion 3
3a. Fail. The content already provided deals with the most important aspects of the topic. I feel that a dedicated section on recovery would be useful, as some content is either absent or spread over the whole article. For example, the recovery time is stated as "only a few minutes or up to several hours" in "Risks and complications". More practical advice on recovery is relevant to the article as a whole, and is the main missing section. I'm sure that it will not take long to find relevant content (such as this from the NHS website ). Bibeyjj (talk) 14:26, 29 November 2020 (UTC)


 * 3a. Pass. The relevant suggestions on adding a recovery section have been followed (in accordance with the layout suggested by the Medicine Style Guide), and some really excellent well-referenced content has been moved from elsewhere and new content added. Bibeyjj (talk) 09:14, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

3b. Pass. All content is relevant to the subject, and links back well. There is enough technical detail for a good understanding of the procedure. Bibeyjj (talk) 14:26, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Criterion 4
4. Pass. All the content is neutral in tone. I appreciate the progress that has been made on this issue considering some of the more biased content that used to be included in the article. Particularly the "History" and "Society and culture" sections present evidence-based information in a good way. Bibeyjj (talk) 14:28, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Criterion 5
5. Pass. No edit wars or ongoing content disputes. The past content disputes have all been resolved. Bibeyjj (talk) 14:30, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Criterion 6
6a. Pass. All media are formatted, with copyright statuses noted. Bibeyjj (talk) 14:37, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

6b. Pass. All graphics relevant, with useful captions to demonstrate written content clearly. I appreciate that available content has been used, and I certainly hope that more images will become available in the future for the "Risks and complications" section - obviously, the current images are excellent. Bibeyjj (talk) 14:37, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Follow-Up Comments

 * User:Bibeyjj: I've added a recovery section by moving some of the information into it from another section, as well as adding some more information I found. If you could take another look and offer any further comments you may have on the whole article (even if they won't fail it at this time, I appreciate and will work on any other issues you find as well) I'd appreciate it! Thanks, -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 05:26, 2 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi Berchanhimez! Thank you for your recent edits, which have made a real improvement to the content and structure of the article. I am now prepared to pass the article. Congratulations! Bibeyjj (talk) 09:14, 2 December 2020 (UTC)