Talk:Oxygen toxicity/GA2
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
GA Review
I'm guessing that the writer/nominator is unaware of WP:MOSMED. The recommended style uses the following sections:-
- Classification
- Signs and symptoms or Characteristics
- Causes or Genetics
- Pathophysiology or Mechanism
- Diagnosis (including Characteristic biopsy findings and differential diagnosis)
- Prevention or Screening
- Treatment or Management
- Prognosis
- Epidemiology
- History (not patient history)
- Society and culture (e.g., stigma, economics, religious aspects, awareness, legal issues)
- Research directions
- In other animals
- See also (avoid if possible, use wikilinks in the main article)
- Notes
- References
- Further reading or Bibliography (paper resources such as books, not web sites)
- External links (avoid if possible)
Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- "Classification": Is it classified by the cause, or by the target organ damage?
- "Signs and symptoms" is likely to be the bulk of the article, containing a description of the effects.
- "Causes" should include risk factors such as diving depth/duration and prematurity of infants.
- "Pathophysiology" should be a review of free radical formation and effects.
- "Diagnosis": Presumably in diving it's a diagnosis of exclusion, in conjunction with the history? How are retinopathy and bronchopulmonary dysplasia diagnosed in infants?
- "Prevention": Safety devices when diving. Monitoring and minimizing pO2 for neonates?
- "Treatment": although somewhat limited treatment options are available, this needs its own section with as much available info as possible.
- "Prognosis": More missing information.
- "Epidemiology": Frequency in divers? Frequency of retinopathy and BPD in premature neonates?
- "History", "Society and culture", "Research" & "In other animals" are not required for GA status.
I am pleased to see that the current information is well-referenced. However there is a lot of missing information. Compliance with the recommended WP:MOSMED would help a lot. This article is not yet a good article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)