Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cancer/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 21:24, 28 April 2007.

Cancer
GA article. --Goingempty 10:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. Large sections are not formally referenced. This shouldn't be hard, because most of this knowledge is easily found in cell biology and medicine textbooks. JFW | T@lk  15:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Object per:
 * Molecular biology has only 3 citations, which does not adequately cover the material.
 * Several one/two sentence paragraphs, such as in Childhood cancer.
 * Hormonal suppression is far too short to be its own subsection.
 * Section titles include "cancer"; see WP:MOS
 * On the positive side, the article is very broad and has great diagrams. Also, the sources appear reliable and varied. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose per User:Cryptic C62, large sections lack inline citations. -Phoenix 22:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now...ummm, a few issues:


 * ...a class of diseases (I need to look this up but it doesn't sound right somehow. I think there's a better way of phrasing this)


 * Severity of symptoms depends on the site and character of the malignancy and whether there is metastasis. (two problems here, "severity" implies some form of proportional relationship - "Nature" of symptoms, or presence/absence is better. Also, the word metastasis is not used in the singular like this. One would use the plural.)


 * the LEAD is unbalanced and concentrates too much on process. I'd like to see the 4th para expanded. Need to mention common ones at least - lung, breast etc. leading cause of death should go in lead I'd have thought.


 * para 1 of history launches into discussion on the etymology of carcinoma, which reinforces the misconception that all cancers are carcinoma (most are but the two main divisions are carcinomas and sarcomas)


 * the classification is a random list of types of tumours. It needs the proper divisions (eg: carcinoma vs. sarcoma; a lymphoma is more correctly a lymphosarcoma but no-one ever calls it that etc.


 * also in the classification, if you're going to list the ones you've listed, you need to mention adenocarcinomas (tumours of gland cells)


 * Origins of cancer has only one ref, and kids section above it could do with a few more.


 * Molecular biology is long. viral stuff could probably be a subsubsection.


 * .actually several sections have only a few refs.

Finally, on the plus side, I think the prose is ok and all the above is doable. There is a huge amount of information summarised in th article and I congratulate you on getting it in a succinct form (so most of the hardest work is done). This article should (I guess) have somewhere over 100 references given the size and breadth of the information. I have noted the shortness of some sections but given the size, scope and nature of the article (a medical one) I don't think these detract overly from the flow of the article overall.

Sorry. cheers, Cas Liber | talk  |  contribs 12:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose, 1c, undercited. Suggest reviewing recent medical FAs (Tuberculosis, Influenza or Tourette syndrome) and WP:MEDMOS to prepare for FAC.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.