Talk:Toxoplasma gondii/GA2

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

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 01:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take this review. Initial comments to follow in the next hour or so. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

While off to a good start in many respects, this article still appears to need some significant work to meet GA requirements. These are the points I'd suggest you address before renominating:


 * One immediate issue is the clean-up tag dating to April that hasn't been addressed: "This article contains instructions, advice, or how-to content. The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to train. Please help improve this article either by rewriting the how-to content or by moving it to Wikiversity, Wikibooks or Wikivoyage." Some of this information is probably worth including, but the section's style does read as a how-to manual rather than information; it shouldn't appear in the form of instructions. The lengthy lists also raise an issue with WP:EMBED, a GA criterion.
 * Another issue is the article's layout. WP:LAYOUT (another GA criterion) strongly discourages one-paragraph sections and single-sentence paragraphs; this article seems to have a fair number of both. I would suggest rewriting to make this less choppy and have better flow.
 * Another issue is the article's lead section. It's just a little long (WP:LEAD recommends only 1-3 paragraphs for a short article like this, with an absolute maximum of four), but a bigger issue is that it presents information that's not also in the body of the article, rather than summarizing the article. (I'm looking here specifically about the detail on schizophrenia and neurological disorders, or the statement "In humans, it is one of the most common parasites". Given that the sources for the former are only a few months old, I'd actually question whether this association belongs in the lead at all, but I'll leave that decision to Wikipedians more used to giving weight to medical evidence.) On the other hand, the lead currently omits any detail about the "history" section (for example, the year of its identification).

I hope this helps! I see that you're a comparatively new Wikipedian, so I hope that you won't find these comments discouraging. Your work here is greatly appreciated, and I hope this does reach GA. After rewriting, one avenue you might consider is to put this up for Peer review for further feedback before renominating; that's often a much faster way to get responses than GA, which (I'm sure you've noticed!) often has a lengthy backlog. All the best, and just let me know if you have any questions about the above. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:11, 30 May 2013 (UTC)