Talk:Roberts syndrome/GA1

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

Lots of issues. My main concern is that there are so many lists that could easily be turned into prose


 * There are only six footnotes in the whole article, and a few improperly-formatted references at the bottom.
 * The third paragraph of "Heredity" is unsourced entirely.
 * The "symptoms" section would probably better as prose. "Symptoms include x, y and z." No need to describe just what x, y, and z are since you'll be linking to the articles on each symptom anyway.
 * "Diagnosis" and "Differential diagnosis" would also be better off in prose.
 * "Cytogenetic testing" is unsourced.
 * No need to use "are listed below" in the article at all.
 * "Clinical description" is probably better off in prose as well.
 * The prose is very choppy and disorganized throughout. I don't know much about things medical, but I get the feeling that this is barely even scratching the surface of what could be covered.

This article, in my opinion, has a very long way to go before it could reach GA. I would call it start-class at best. Reviewer: Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)