Talk:Nitrogen narcosis/GA1

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

The article is an interesting, well-researched, and well-written article. It should be worthy of the GA rating pending a few minor adjustments. Here's how it stacks up against the six Good Article criteria:


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Article text is good. Lead section is a good summary. The article meets the manual of style.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * The article is well-cited by sources that meet reliability guidelines. There are a couple of citation needed tags in the article that do need to be addressed prior to GA status, however.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * The article appears to cover the important aspects of the topic well. A minor concern is with the relatively short length of the management, prognosis, and epidemiology sections. With just a few sentences in each section, it seems like the information could be expanded here. The management section seems to repeat information already given in the diagnosis section, so perhaps those two sections could be combined?
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * The article is written in a neutral tone.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * Most edits are by one editor. There are no major edit wars.
 * 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):
 * The images are all tagged appropriately and meet copyright requirements. The Meyer-Overton correlation graph is good, but appears to simply be added on to the history section, and isn't connected to the text of that section. It would help if the text of the section connected with the image.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Overall, the article is very good. Once the issues are addressed sufficiently, the article can be promoted to GA status. I'll put it on hold for now. Dr. Cash (talk) 15:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

First response
Thank you for offering to review Nitrogen narcosis. I'll give my detailed responses below:


 * 2. The article existed for over six years before I made my first edit to it, and it was largely unsourced. Working with Gene Hobbs, we were eventually able to cite sources for most of the content. What could not be immediately sourced, I tagged, to encourage other editors to help with refs. Those four statements are what is left and I've highlighted them on the Talk page. I'll ask my collaborator, Gene Hobbs, who is the expert on sourcing, if he can make another attempt to find decent sources supporting those statements. If they can't be sourced within a few days, I'll remove them until such time as they can be verified. --RexxS (talk) 18:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * 3. I wish I could expand diagnosis, management, prognosis and epidemiology, but the condition has its diagnosis confirmed by its management (which is trivial: ascending); it affects everyone; and has no long-term effects if managed. That's it, really. The interesting bits are the symptoms, causes and prevention and so sources concentrate on those. Anyway, I've merged diagnosis and management - as they are inextricably related - as well as prognosis and epidemiology since they may be described so simply. I'll re-read later to see if I can remove redundancy in the diagnosis and management section.


 * 6. The Meyer-Overton graph was intended to refer to this paragraph in History: The first report of anesthetic potency being related to lipid solubility was published by Hans H. Meyer in 1899, entitled Zur Theorie der Alkoholnarkose. Two years later a similar theory was published independently by Charles Ernest Overton. I can now see that I didn't make that clear enough, so I've added a sentence explaining that became the Meyer-Overton Hypothesis and the graph illustrates it.

I'm most grateful for your comments and hope that this initial response goes some way to meeting them. Please let me know if you feel I'm moving in the right direction, and if there are any other issues that I can address. --RexxS (talk) 18:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The changes so far look good. Thanks. The citation needed tags do need to be addressed prior to GA, as they're red flags. Specifically, the GA criteria states: "it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines". The presence of 'citation needed' tags indicates that the material is being "challenged", which goes directly against that criterion. Dr. Cash (talk) 13:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Second response: Well, I'm the one doing the challenging as I placed the tags (the material was added by other editors). But I hope you would agree that those four statements need to be substantiated, so I usually place those tags to attract any other editors who might be able to find a source that I can't. Since they have been there for a month now, I'm ready to remove the statements - they are not crucial to an understanding of nitrogen narcosis. If it's ok with you, I'll give it another couple of days (in case Gene can find something, although I know he's been busy at work recently). By Monday 17 August, either I'll have sources or I'll take out the four statements. I hope that timeframe is acceptable to you. If you get a chance, I appreciate it if you could indicate any other issues you may have, or if I haven't sufficiently addressed the other points you raised above. Thanks again. --RexxS (talk) 22:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Addendum: I've now sourced one of the four statements and removed the other three. The text still reads just as well, and if sources can be found in the future, they can be put back. Is there any other issue still outstanding? --RexxS (talk) 18:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

GA passed
The article meets the GA Criteria and will be listed. Nice work. Dr. Cash (talk) 03:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)