Talk:Tetralogy of Fallot/GA1

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

Reviewer: Vaticidalprophet (talk · contribs) 14:58, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Picking this up. Vaticidalprophet 14:58, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I'll unfortunately need to quickfail this article per WP:GAFAIL criteria 1, as it would require serious, foundational work to reach the Good Article standard.

This article has seen recent substantial edits from Wiki Ed editors, which have introduced noticeable tone problems to the article. For instance, the "Related disorders" section introduced by Wiki Ed editors is written from the perspective of a medical professional writing advice to other medical professionals (see phrasing such as "For a differential diagnosis, comparisons between these disorders provides valuable knowledge"), which diverges from the tone expected for an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia's medical articles are written for multiple audiences, and should not be written under the assumption readers are themselves medical professionals.

The article also has issues with both repetitive/irrelevant content and overly brutal summary style, making some sections overlong and others too short. For instance, while attention is given to the role of genetics in TOF in several places, this is rarely presented in a way useful to the reader. The "Causes" section gives a long list of potential genetic causes of TOF, but it's almost completely decontextualized; rare and common mutations are presented beside each other without being properly compared. Genetic etiologies are mentioned again under "Diagnosis", but in a single line about velocardiofacial syndrome screening. "Causes" also gives a significant amount of text to environmental etiologies, but in decontextualized and often irrelevant ways, veering off into discussion of unrelated conditions with similar causes and failing to disambiguate TOF risk from all CHD risk.

There are also significant prose and MOS issues throughout the article. I suggest anyone interested in pursuing GA status further request a WP:GOCE pre-GAN copyedit.

The article's nominator has not edited since 9 December, and the other recent significant editor since 5 December. For this reason, and the broader fact Wiki Ed editors often don't return to the project after completion of their course, I've concluded a prompt response is unlikely and holding the review open for a long period will probably not get these issues addressed. The issues with this article are significant enough that handling them in a single GAN would be implausible, and this is only compounded by the inactivity of significant contributors. I've left these notes nonetheless, because this is a core medical article and I'd like to see it GA someday, and this will hopefully be of use to anyone able to rewrite. Vaticidalprophet 02:23, 6 January 2022 (UTC)