Talk:History of malaria/GA2

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

I have opened this review, because the article has numerous tags (many added by myself, to remind me what I or others need to fix). After much basic fixup, I've concluded that I cannot easily bring the article back up to GA standards. Here are the basic issues, which I have partially addressed on the talk page.

Standard:

1, Well written 2, Verifiable
 * The lead is obviously not a proper summary of the text; as a start, there should be some summary (sentence or two at least) for each level 3 section
 * There are many names (like 'Pel') and concepts (like 'three types of malaria') which pop into the text with no definition
 * 'Malaria' itself is at least 6 related diseases/organisms, of four (or five) types, which are not defined. There is of course a separate article for this, but I cannot vouch for that article, and should not be required to read it to understand this one. A basic description of the disease should be given somewhere.
 * There are three pairs of sections with same or almost the same names: Lifecycle, Anti-malarial drugs, and Methylene Blue. This is confusing to a reader or scholar.  I would suggest that the sections on Methylene blue be merged, and the other sections be appropriately renamed.
 * WP:PROMOTION - there are a lot of company, organization and trade names used in the text, for no essential reason.
 * There are at least 130 person names, quite a few of which would fail WP:NOTABILITY generally, or notability within the area of 'History of Malaria'.
 * There are some highly technical issues mentioned, but not described, like sexual reproduction of eucaryotes, and soluability of dye precipitates, so that the non-expert reader cannot understand the point made.
 * There is a rather closely connected sequence of cause-effect discoveries that led from methylene blue to chloroquine, but the text is choppy, as if the discoveries were isolated accidents. The composition needs to be reworked.
 * acccessibility to the general reader - there is a fair amount of technical jargon, some of it tagged inline, that could/should be relaced with vernacular English
 * The text has been sparsely tagged with [clarify], [more information required], or [citation required] in places where a scholar would not be able to determine the source for the statement. There are other places which have not ben tagged.  At a minimum, each paragraph should have an inline citation at the end to support the text (additional inline citations may be needed if that one doesn't support the entire text of the paragraph, of course).

Editors may look to the inline tags as well as top of article tags, and the sections on the talk page just above the GA review, for specific details. Editors should consider removing tags as problems are fixed, as agreed upon in the GA review. If there is a concern about whether a tag is placed unnecessarily, let us discuss it here.

If other editors reach consensus that this article meets GA status as it stands, I'll be quite happy to do summary closure of the review, and let the article remain GA.Sbalfour (talk) 02:32, 16 March 2014 (UTC)


 * It has been over an year since any developments were made on this page. Are the issues raised by you addressed? Please clarify the status of the assessment. Thanks. &mdash;  Yash! [talk] 08:11, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The article is pretty thoroughly cited; the tags seem all to have been sorted out and removed. The text does not appear to me to be unduly hard to read, certainly not more than average. If anything still needs rework, it is quite minor; I can help redraft the lead if that is still necessary. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:13, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * @Yash!: this doesn't seem to be moving at all. I suggest it now be closed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:37, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough . This has been open for way too long. I am closing this. Good work! &mdash;  Yash! (Y) 00:12, 6 June 2015 (UTC)