Talk:Spontaneous cerebrospinal fluid leak/GA2

GA Review 2
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''
 * 1) Well-written
 * (a)
 * Lengthy technical terms are repeated unnecessarily, even when an abbreviation for them has been introduced. As a result, the prose is difficult to read and does not "flow".✅
 * Some verbs are apparently missing. (e.g. "A 2003-2004 Emergency Room-based study indicated that spontaneous CSF leak resulting in spontaneous intracranial hypotension at 5 per 100,000") ✅
 * Some sentences are too lengthy and should be restructured. (e.g. "As a result of this descension of the brain is believed to stretch or impact various nerve complexes, including the eighth cranial nerve, causing hearing problems or vertigo, the optic nerve (the 2nd cranial nerve, which transmits visual information to the brain) or Optic chiasm (where the optic nerves partially cross), causing visual blurring, the facial nerve (the ninth (IX) cranial nerve), causing facial numbness and weakness and chorda tympani, or the glossopharyngeal nerve, causing taste distortion.") ✅
 * Using its opening two sentences, the Epidemiology section carefully introduces the terms "incidence" and "prevalence" with no apparent connection to anything else in the article. ✅
 * (b)
 * A lead section should summarize the content of the article. In this article, the lead section does not do that, but instead introduces many technical terms and definitions.✅
 * The lead section carefully explains dura mater, but not meninges. The opening paragraph is not friendly to read, even for someone trained in biology.  Are you certain? I had this reviewed by friends who tell me just the opposite.  Basket of Puppies  02:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Some highly technical jargon is neither explained nor linked (e.g. " Reversible Frototemporal Dementia")✅
 * Each paragraph has its own subsection, even when the paragraph is only one or two sentences. These short, choppy section should either be expanded into full sections, or else combined with other sections.
 * 1) Factually accurate and verifiable
 * (a)
 * Minimal reference content is not given. A reference should include the author(s) and date for each source, and should not summarize the content of that source.  Summary of information should appear either in the article itself, or may be placed in a separate Notes section, but should not appear as part of the source attribution. I have to disagree with this. Every science journal uses the references section in order to explain and add content that wouldn't be appropriate or fit into the main body of the article.  Basket of Puppies  02:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * (b) ✅
 * (c) ✅
 * 1) Broad
 * (a) - This cannot be determined at this time because of the overly technical jargon and difficult prose.
 * (b) ✅
 * 1) Neutral ✅
 * 2) Stable ✅
 * 3) Illustrated
 * (a) ✅ - All images uploaded to Commons.
 * (b)  - Several captions are uninformative.✅

Additional specific notes:
 * It is poor style to use images in varying sizes near each other, although that is not a technical requirement for GA status.

Overall assessment: Fail. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * CommentI will immediately begin to fix the issues raised above. I am curious, however, if the issues warranted a quickfail? Perhaps they could be corrected as part of the GA review? Basket of Puppies  01:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This wasn't a quickfail, which is where certain basic criteria haven't been met, and so the article need not be read in detail. I read the article quite thoroughly and spent hours drafting the review.  If this were the first time this article had gone through GA, I might have considered holding it for a week for improvement, but this is the second pass through GAN (nominated again barely a month after the first fail) and the required changes are rather substantial.  This article needs much work to make the prose understandable to an expert reader, and that's not something that can be corrected quickly.  Add to that the other several issues across multiple GA criteria.  You are always welcome to nominate again when the article has been improved.  You might seek help at the  WikiProject Medicine in improving the article's prose and readability before resubmitting.


 * Please note that in the review above, some examples were used to represent larger problems. In responding to the review, you have only tried to address the specific examples given, and not the larger problems.  For example, while you have adjusted the technical jargon "Reversible Frototemporal Dementia" and checked that item as "done"; it isn't actually done because there is a lot of other technical jargon with the same problem (e.g. "opening fluid pressure", "autonomic dysfunction", and "radioactive contrast").  Again, these are examples of the larger problem and not the only such words to be corrected.  Instead of focussing on improving the few specific examples that are pointed out, you need to look beyond those specifics to the larger problem that is indicated, and correct that problem throughout the article.


 * Likewise, you have checked the first point as "done", but it isn't. Look again at the opening two paragraphs and see just how many times "cerebrospinal fluid leak" is repeated, sometimes more than once in a sentence.  Pronouns (and abbreviations) are our friends.


 * Again, on the issue of missing verbs: You checked this as "done", but the example's subordinate clause still has no verb. I'm not sure what the sentence is supposed to say, but it's still not a complete sentence because it's missing the verb in what I assume is meant to be a subordinate clause.


 * For the issue of references: Wikipedia is not a technical journal. We have our own style guide, just as each publication has a style guide of its own.  The WP style is to include authors and dates, and not to include a summary of the article as part of the citation.  This is also true of 99% of the scientific journals I have used.  You are free to disagree, but the requirements for GA specify that certain aspects of Wikipedia's manual of style must be met.  If you choose not to meet them, then the article cannot be accepted as for GA status.


 * For image captions, you have added additional text, but the text does not tie the contents of the picture to the article. The last image, for example, needs a caption that says what it is the picture shows, and interprets what the viewer is seeing.  Right now, it contains what appears to be a random statement.  All this is going to take a lot of work, and (as I said) you should try seeking help from the medical WikiProject on this. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Response I believe I understand what you are saying. I have begun to request additional editorial assistance from the Medicine project and from the GA collaboration team. Hopefully with a few more hands on this the issues you raise can be remedied. Basket of Puppies  04:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)