Talk:Streptococcal pharyngitis/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jhfortier (talk) 05:11, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * Seems great; the writing is precise and technical, but not so filled with jargon as to be unreadable to the average user. Tables and lists are used sparingly and well.  Very interesting notes about the Centor score; I'd never heard of that before.
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * Excellent use of wikilinks; they're included where they link to articles which are relevant to the topic.
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * Excellent references to reliable, peer-reviewed material available online for easy checking.
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * Covers symptoms, treatments in the US and Europe, and other medically-relevant information on the topic
 * B. Focused:
 * Enough detail is given for broad coverage, but the article stays focussed on the main points and doesn't digress needlessly.
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Great work; this is a short article, but full of all the relevant information on strep throat. Well done.  If this article is going to get to FA, the editors might consider adding information about historical levels of strep outbreaks, and how/when it was characterized.  I've made some changes to clarify some of the wording, but overall it was a great article.  Well done!
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Great work; this is a short article, but full of all the relevant information on strep throat. Well done.  If this article is going to get to FA, the editors might consider adding information about historical levels of strep outbreaks, and how/when it was characterized.  I've made some changes to clarify some of the wording, but overall it was a great article.  Well done!
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Great work; this is a short article, but full of all the relevant information on strep throat. Well done.  If this article is going to get to FA, the editors might consider adding information about historical levels of strep outbreaks, and how/when it was characterized.  I've made some changes to clarify some of the wording, but overall it was a great article.  Well done!

Additional comments
Always welcome!

05:11, 3 May 2010 (UTC)