Talk:Andersen–Tawil syndrome

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Andersen–Tawil syndrome/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Canada Hky (talk · contribs) 00:02, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello! I am happy to review this article for GA status. I will go through and make some comments as I read, and then will run through the checklist at the end, to make sure I haven't missed anything. Canada Hky (talk) 00:02, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Initial comments

• No copyvio issues.
• Images all look good.
• In the lead - can you explicitly call out the triad of diagnostic findings? The last sentence refers to the triad, but I had to go back and piece together what it was - something similar to the first sentence of the signs and symptoms section.  Done
• Sub out "mutation" for "variant" or "pathogenic variant".  Done
• In the "Cause" section, "mutation" is linked well after its first usage - is there a specific reason for this decision?  Done
• For the table in the "Cause" section - while the abbreviation 'ATS' is pretty easy to guess - it isn't defined in the article.  Done
• In the "Diagnosis" section - the text says "if 2/3 criteria are met", but there are 4 different criteria listed.  Done
• There is inconsistency between "long qt syndrome" and "Long QT syndrome" - I would suggest the former, as it isn't a proper noun, but it should definitely be consistent.  Done
• Reference 12 should have an access date.  Done

I will update if I find anything else. Please let me know if there are any questions. I am going to put the article on hold for now. If you think you will need more than the standard 7 days, just let me know. Canada Hky (talk) 00:23, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Canada Hky. I actioned all the points you have raised above - thanks for spotting those errors. Anything else? PeaBrainC (talk) 09:02, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Checklist

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall: Thanks for the opportunity to review this article. It was easy to read, focused and comprehensive!

   Pass/Fail: