Talk:Urinothorax/GA1

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

Reviewer: Bibeyjj (talk · contribs) 09:56, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Steve M! I hope that you are well. I'm happy to take up the review of this article. I'm really looking forward to working with you on this, particularly as you have improved the article so much recently, and urinothorax is a condition I have studied at university quite recently.

I'll do my best to respond quickly to any queries you have. I will be using the template "GABox" to keep track of progress, and writing descriptions of why criteria have or haven't been met under different sub-heading (to keep things clean). Thanks! Bibeyjj (talk) 09:56, 10 February 2021 (UTC)


 * , thanks! I have to go to work but will be ready to improve the article this evening. Steve M (talk) 12:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Criteria 1
1a: Fail. The prose is well-written, and has a clear style. There are a few simple spelling errors that can be corrected easily. Grammar is fairly consistent and always correct. Bibeyjj (talk) 16:09, 10 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Lead - "Treatment involved treating" should be "treatment involves treating".
 * Causes - "It is usually caused by" should be "Urinothorax is usually caused by".
 * Causes - "Rarely, it cal be" should be "Rarely, it can be".
 * Mechanism - "The fluid has the smell of urine." should make it clear that the fluid collection is urine.
 * Mechanism - "retro peritoneal" should be "retroperitoneal".
 * Diagnosis - "nucleated cell count" should make it clear what this metric is - cell count in what volume / range of view?
 * Diagnosis - "The PH" should be "The pH".
 * Diagnosis - "technitium 99m" should be "technitium-99m" as per the article title and standard convention.
 * Treatment - "Also ineffective is pleurodesis." could be written as "Pleurodesis is also ineffective." for clarity.
 * 2nd image - "being treated.jpg" should be "being treated."


 * , I have addressed all these issues except for the nucleated cell count, which I don't know how to fix. Does it look better? Steve M (talk) 21:13, 10 February 2021 (UTC)


 * . Thank you for resolving the spelling so quickly! As far as I can tell, everything is now in order, so this criteria is passed. With regards to the nucleated cell count, this is usually measured per unit volume. As the article is pay-for-access, I can't tell if they meant per mm^3 (μl) or per cm^3 (ml). This is a less important issue, but if you have access to the article then this would be worth a check. Thanks! Bibeyjj (talk) 21:30, 10 February 2021 (UTC)


 * , I'm afraid that it does not say the unit. Steve M (talk) 02:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


 * . That's alright, and thank you for looking into this. I've had a little research into what volume is typically used. Whilst we can't know for sure, the unit volume is likely to be cm^3 (ml), so I will add this to the article. Bibeyjj (talk) 08:37, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

1b: Pass. Complies with WP:LEAD (although it would be preferable for inline reference 1 to be located under the "Causes" section). Complies with WP:MEDORDER and WP:LAYOUT for sectioning and structure. Complies with WP:WTW as language is clear and generally supported by inline references. WP:WAF does not apply. Complies with WP:Embedded list as no lists included, and prose an appropriate way to represent content. Bibeyjj (talk) 15:16, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Criteria 2
2a: Pass. A good number of references, and the majority of sentences have inline references. References are all formatted correctly. Bibeyjj (talk) 18:31, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

2b: Pass. 10 references are to respected academic journals, while 2 references are to textbooks that are specialist in pulmonary physiology. All references have been checked for verifiability and being well-represented in the article. Some of the references could be "reused" a bit more to improve the verifiability of important facts. Bibeyjj (talk) 18:58, 10 February 2021 (UTC)


 * References 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 10, 11, and 12 have all been fully verified.
 * References 4, 5, 6, and 9 could not be fully verified (usually due to restricted journal access).
 * Reference 2 did not always cite its own claims.
 * Reference 4 contains information that can be used to further verify claims in the article by using 2 inline references.
 * Reference 7 has been nearly copied for its second usage in the article, and the term "suspicion" should probably be replaced with a more scientific phrase such as "the condition requires exclusion of other conditions and the identification of specific symptoms before diagnosis."
 * Reference 8 contains a "deeper" reference for the second claim about under-diagnosis, which should be included in the "Epidemiology section of the Wikipedia article. See doi: 10.1097/01.mcp.0000230628.65515.86.
 * References 8 and 11 were single case reports, although both were accurate in their claims.
 * Reference 12 is a duplicate of reference 11, and should be deleted - the inline reference in the "Prognosis" section should be replaced with reference 11.

2c: Pass. Every reference that can be has been checked, and all are well-represented in the article. Very few statements lack an inline reference. There are no statements of opinion, except for one or two descriptions of smells and appearance etc. Bibeyjj (talk) 18:59, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

2d: Pass. To the best of my knowledge, there is no plagiarism in this article. Occasionally, some references have been used too literally, but this is a fairly rare occurrence. I used a plagiarism scanner to check all the sectioned text, which came back with no detected plagiarism. Bibeyjj (talk) 19:08, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Criteria 3
3a: Pass. The general overview of the article is very good. The lead paragraph explains a key point from each section clearly to give a useful summary. All the key aspects of WP:MEDORDER have been included in their logical order. Bibeyjj (talk) 19:10, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

3b: Fail. I just want to discuss this, and will change to a pass if you think that there is not much else in the scientific literature. There are a few places where more detail could be given, such as describing the specific urological symptoms in the "Signs and symptoms" section. As I say, I'm open to be persuaded on this point, and only the above point on specific signs and symptoms truly needs to be resolved. Bibeyjj (talk) 19:15, 10 February 2021 (UTC)


 * , I thought the same too. However, the rarity of this disease makes even paid sources not enough to provide comprehensive info. I thought the same, but it took a huge amount of digging and there are likely no more sources that are recent and provide new info. Steve M (talk) 20:21, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


 * . Thank you for clarifying the obstructive causes of urinothorax - this is really helpful! I understand the issue of a lack of more comprehensive studies as the condition is so rare. This is a major issue in identifying some of the details of the condition. Obviously, there is no end to the number of case reports that can be cited, and I agree that it is best to avoid an excess of these. As such, I'm happy that this criteria has been passed.


 * Looking through case reports, I have seen 2 where hydronephrosis (caused by different aetiologies) was a significant factor in causing the leakage of urine - this may be worth including related to urological symptoms in "Signs and symptoms" and in the "Causes" sections, but I will leave this to your judgement. Thanks! Bibeyjj (talk) 21:16, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eucr.2019.100957
 * https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2019.08.1578

Criteria 4
4: Pass. Not a controversial subject. Subject matter handled well with no use of opinion. Language choice is appropriate to fairly represent the content. Bibeyjj (talk) 11:39, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Criteria 5
5: Pass. No edit wars in whole history of article. No outstanding queries on talk page. Bibeyjj (talk) 11:31, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Criteria 6
6a: Pass. 3 images is a suitable quantity for this article. The 3 images used show good radiographs and CT scans of the condition. All 3 are licenced under CreativeCommons licenses. It would be good to include the "Commons category" template in a new external links section at the bottom - there are 4 other images on Wikimedia Commons that are also useful. Bibeyjj (talk) 11:48, 10 February 2021 (UTC)


 * . Thank you for including the "Commons category" template! Bibeyjj (talk) 20:54, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

6b: Pass. All 3 images have a descriptive and helpful caption. The ".jpg" spelling issue with image 2 needs to be resolved (mentioned in 1a). Image 2 might also benefit from one sentence helping users not familiar with transverse CT scans about how to identify the nephrostomy tube, such as "The white line on the lower left of the image shows the nephrostomy tube entering the abdomen. Bibeyjj (talk) 19:03, 10 February 2021 (UTC)


 * , this had been addressed Steve M (talk) 21:32, 10 February 2021 (UTC)


 * . Thank you for improving this! Bibeyjj (talk) 08:28, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


 * , what more needs to be addressed before this can become a GA? Steve M (talk) 21:10, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


 * . I'm satisfied that all the criteria have now been met, so the article has been promoted to GA status! Bibeyjj (talk) 21:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Summary and Discussion
Hi Steve M! I just wanted to give a summary of my first look through the article. Overall, it is very close to being a good article. The prose is clear, it complies with all relevant policies, has a good coverage of inline references, is verifiable and not copyrighted or original research, and is a stable article with no controversial topics. The main points that need resolution are some minor improvements to spelling (as listed), a few less urgent issues with references (particularly reusing references to improve verifiability), a little more detail on specific signs and symptoms, the "Commons category" template under a new trailing "External links" section, and perhaps another sentence to describe the nephrostomy tube location in image 2. I hope this is useful - please don't feel rushed to respond to these issues! Bibeyjj (talk) 19:21, 10 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi ! Congratulations on all the work you have done to improve this article to GA status. You have been very easy to work with! I'm satisfied that all of the major issues of spelling and expanding certain medical details have been met. I will also add some more wikilinks to the artlcle afterwards. As the condition is very rare, there will obviously be more information in the future, and I hope that the article can be updated to reflect this. Again, congratulations! Bibeyjj (talk) 21:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC)