Talk:Hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia/GA1

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

Reviewer: WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * (1) I'm not sure about British English (style I've presumed), but in American English, word geeks often recommend restricting the word "where" to expressions of physical location. For example, "This is particularly done in lesions where the feeding blood vessel is 3 mm or larger," would be expressed as something like "This is particularly done in lesions whose feeding blood vessel is 3 mm or larger."  Also, in AmEng, "side effects" is not hyphenated.  I don't know what the BrEng standard is.
 * (2) "coils are deployed that obstruct the blood flow through the lesion and allow it to regress": Is "it" blood, or the AVM, or the coils?
 * (3) "Surgery has now essentially been abandoned due to the success of embolotherapy": I thought that embolotherapy was technically a form of surgery?  Does this refer to something like surgical excision of the AVM?
 * (4) Under treatment, is "(high-flow arteriovenous fistulae)" the type of lesion that causes more problems than average, or is it one of the problems that is caused by problematic lesions?
 * B. MoS compliance: ✅
 * This article complies with all applicable MoS pages from the GA requirements (lead, layout, words).
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects: ✅
 * B. Focused: ✅
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias: ✅
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc: ✅
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: ✅
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: ✅
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * No edit wars, etc: ✅
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: ✅
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: ✅
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:


 * Aside from my notes above, what's left is the tedious step of making sure that whatever JFW (and others) claim is in a given source is actually there. This will take a while (probably several days), and—given the reputation of most of the editors involved—is unlikely to find any problems.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the hard work, WhatamIdoing. Hope the sources do back up everything I've said, given that I carried them around with me for a few weeks while doing this. I'm also shocked at how many spelling mistakes I made. After working on the same content for a while, one tends to skim over the sentences that look most familiar. Thanks for fixing them. I will now address the four concerns in the A/prose quality section:
 * 1) I work in the UK and write BE, but I did not want to change the spelling standard. Thanks for identifying these slips, and please correct me where I have strayed. I will hunt down the examples and change them.
 * 2) You are correct that it's the AVM wot is meant to regress; I will fix it
 * 3) Will clarify that this it is surgery by craniotomy that was abandoned
 * 4) Will clarify that high-flow AVFs are the kind of lesions that cause more trouble

Looking forward to the finishing touches. JFW | T@lk  21:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I've still got three papers to go (including the enormous one), but here's my current list of possible discrepancies. (NB that these complaints may represent deficiencies in my search strategies, not actual problems):


 * 1) "Often contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT angiography) is used to identify lung lesions; this modality has a sensitivity of over 97%."
 * Govani[1] seems to favor non-contrast CT; Faughnan[5] only claims >90% sensitivity.
 * 1) "(epistaxis), which happen frequently from childhood and affect about 90% of people with HHT"
 * Dupuis[2] says more than 95%.
 * 1) "Lesions on the skin and in the mouth bleed less often but may be considered cosmetically displeasing; they affect about 80%"
 * Neither the "bleed less often" nor the "cosmetically displeasing" claims seem to be in Govani[1] or Dupuis[2]
 * 1) "In Haut Jura, this has been shown to be the result of a particular ACVRL1 mutation (named c.1112dupG or c.1112_1113insG).[2]"
 * Dupuis[2] does not contain this much detail (e.g., searching for "Jura" produces no results). This may well be both True™ and verifiable, but it does not seem to be in the named source.
 * 1) "In 2000, an international meeting on the Caribbean island of Curaçao formulated the now widely used Curaçao criteria.[7][15]"
 * It looks like the meeting itself may have been in 1997.
 * 1) I don't have Young's 1967 paper[18], and I'm concerned that it may not directly support a claim that it is useful for HHT.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

You're being very thorough! Thanks for double-checking this.
 * 1) Govani is alone in suggesting non-contrast, hence left this out. Faughnan was talking about contrast echo, but I agree that they give no exact sensitivity for CTA.
 * 2) Agree that Dupuis' figure ought to be quoted explicitly
 * 3) Agree that no source states this explicitly, but few people like blood vessels in their face - I will happily remove this if you don't think I should state the obvious.
 * 4) I wasn't sure whether to quote an additional primary source to link the statements in both papers;  is the relevant reference. It is cited as such by Dupuis-Girod, but with omission of Haut-Jura as the authors clearly presume we are not interested in French geography.
 * 5) The paper does not state when the meeting took place. I should probably remove the year until we can verify this.
 * 6) I only cited the paper as evidence that the procedure exists and was described by Young. You are quite correct that it was described in atrophic rhinitis. Do you think I should change it?

Will fix anything else that comes up when you read the Guideline. It still hasn't appeared in print. JFW | T@lk  20:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) I'm entirely satisfied with your response.
 * 2) That's fine.
 * 3) I accept the inclusion of the cosmetic issue; it does not require an inline source.  Do the sources say that the skin lesions bleed less frequently than mucocutaneous lesions?  I couldn't find it, and "more" is a "statistic" at some level.
 * 4) I don't think we need to worry about it.  It's verifi able, and not one of the five items on the GA list, so I'm happy.  If someone decides to fuss about it some day, they'll find the answer here.
 * 5) Your solution looks fine.
 * 6) I'm waffling.  That Young's is/could be used is supported by that lengthy guideline, so we don't really "need" it.  But if the reader wants to find out what the procedure is, then the source might be handy.  (Should that be a redlink?)

From the guideline, the only think I couldn't find "Liver scans may be useful if someone is suspected of HHT, but does not meet the criteria (see below) unless liver lesions can be demonstrated.[7]" However, I strongly suspect the problem is that my eyes are about to close on me, not that it's not in there somewhere.

I've fixed a couple of trivial ENGVAR-type issues. I think this article is in great shape, and I'm happy to pass it (but tomorrow, when I'm awake enough to follow the directions. ;-)  WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:59, 4 September 2010 (UTC)