Talk:Linezolid/GA1

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

Comments to follow soon jimfbleak (talk) 12:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

You obviously know what you are doing, I'll give you a while to respond before a final read and formal assessment jimfbleak (talk) 12:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * images all OK, query "click to enlarge" on two images, since thumbed anyway
 * I considered forcing a larger image size, but didn't think it would be a good idea. Perhaps get rid of the "invitation"?
 * Yes, the thumb symbol is self-explanatory, and people don't like forced image sizes because it overrides settings jimfbleak (talk) 14:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * references first quick scan of refs - seem reliable and consistently and correctly formatted. It would be good practice to write the journal names in full (required if you go to FAC).
 * Hmm, didn't know that was a requirement now. Easy fix, though I personally prefer abbreviations. Done. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * several thousands of dollars suggest several thousand US dollars (unless you mean Canadian)
 * Ah, yes. Done. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * some padding however for instance and similar sprinkled throughout
 * That's a terrible habit of mine. Please feel free to remove any you find unnecessary—I'll have a go at it myself.
 * MIC90 - would it be better to spell out this - a casual reader has no chance of knowing the abbreviation?
 * OK. I thought the link would be sufficient, but we shouldn't presume readers will click on them :)
 * I think it's good practice, as you have done elsewhere, to spelll out abbreviations first time (even if there is a link jimfbleak (talk) 14:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no mention of use or approval outside the UK and N America. Whilst I wouldn't want this to become a list, and I appreciate the difficulty of working with non-English sources, it looks a bit Anglo-centric. Not a deal breaker, but anything else would help to round it out - is it widely used in the EU or Japan for example?
 * Will try to expand on this later.
 * Fine jimfbleak (talk) 14:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I've expanded on approval. It's not easy to find top-notch sources for approval dates, though. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Please feel free to list anything else you think could or should be improved. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Review

 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 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, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

I wish they were all this easy! jimfbleak (talk) 14:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I didn't think it would be this easy either :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

What does the paragraph starting with "In 2009, Pfizer paid $2.3 billion and entered a corporate integrity agreement to settle charges that it had misbranded and illegally promoted four drugs, and caused false claims to be submitted to government healthcare programs. . ." have to do with linezolid? NOTHING. It's editorializing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oirudleahcim (talk • contribs) 02:12, 25 October 2015 (UTC)