Talk:Management of hair loss/GA1

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

Reviewer:  Arctic   Night  17:59, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I'm going to go through this article step-by-step, highlighting what I think the problems are, then give an overall judgmnent based on the good article criteria.


 * First of all, the lead needs to be expanded significantly. According to the DYK check tool, the article is nearly 15,000 characters. That means that the lead should be at least one paragraph long (since we're pushing the upper limit of the bracket with 15,000 characters, I would go for two). Two paragraphs - that's paragraphs, so they've got to be more than a couple of lines long. See WP:LEAD for some helpful hints.
 * Next, the references need to be consistent. While many are formatted nicely using the Cite templates, some references, such as Reference 6, are not formatted at all. These should be made consistent, all using Cite templates.
 * Next, I think the links also need a bit of work. Check out WP:LINKS (specifically WP:REPEATLINK) - the linking style is not consistent. For example, why is the first instance of androgenic alopecia not linked in the 'Lifestyle modification' section, but the second instance is? This should be reversed, and if it happens elsewhere, those issues fixed too. The same goes for linking to the FDA article.
 * In the 'Lifestyle modifications' section, androgenic alopecia should be explained, especially if it's not linked.
 * The 'Approved' subsection should be either expanded or removed, as having subsections consisting of two lines disrupts flow, in my opinion.
 * The use of USA and US should be standardised throughout the article (decide on one).
 * Avoid weasel words. 'Many speculate' should be made concrete.
 * Although I'm not sure if this is an official requirement, when you are providing medical information, it is a good idea to cite your sources. I have highlighted some areas of concern.
 * Male pattern baldness is referred to by different names in several areas throughout the article - this should be fixed (although the alternative names should most likely be brought up after the first usage).
 * Could the dutasteride stats be compiled into a table? They'd look much more professional that way.
 * The hair transplantation section has no sources cited at all.
 * The laser therapy section is too short. It should be expanded or incorporated into another section.
 * A couple of other short sections need rewriting, expansion or incorporation into the rest of the article.

Based on these issues, I'm afraid that this article does not pass criterion one of the good article criteria. Although in most cases I would simply put this nomination on hold, I think that the issues require a fundamental change to the article, so for the time being I'm afraid I won't be able to pass this article. Please feel free to renominate the article once you have improved the article such that it meets criterion one! Thanks for contributing to the encyclopedia!  Arctic   Night  18:28, 2 November 2010 (UTC)