Talk:Azathioprine/GA2

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: LT910001 (talk · contribs) 06:07, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no objections, I'll take this review. I'll note at the outset I've had no role in editing or creating this article. I welcome other editors at any stage to contribute to this review. I will spend a day familiarising myself with the article and then provide an assessment. While you wait, why not spare a thought for the other nominees, and conduct a review or two yourself? This provides excellent insight into the reviewing process, is enjoyable and interesting. A list can be found here Kind regards, Tom (LT) (talk) 06:07, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you very much!--Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 07:54, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for waiting. In conducting this review, I will:

Provide an assessment using WP:GARC
If this article does not meet the criteria, explain what areas need improvement.
Provide possible solutions that may (or may not) be used to fix these.

Assessment[edit]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Very clear and understandable.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	I discuss this below.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

Commentary[edit]

Thanks for your edits so far bringing the article up to its current standard. I find it very easy to read, and I like your writing style. I have a few comments, particularly relating to the sources that have been used.--Tom (LT) (talk) 04:09, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A number of sources are primary sources (eg RCTs or case reports), which we try not to use WP:MEDRS
A number of sources are quite "old" for a pharmacology article. It would be good if, at the minimum, sources used citing medical information are provided from the last 10 years (ideally 5 if possible)
Two small sections lack citations: the "off-label uses" and "the nitro group is introduced with nitric and sulfuric acid."
I suggest remove this unsourced sentence "which are immune-mediated as well", which, although true, is unsourced and doesn't really add anything to the article.

That's not to downplay this article or the work you've put in. Over the next few days I will:--Tom (LT) (talk) 04:09, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Upload a more thorough list of which sources I am pointing to
Do a check for close paraphrasing
Verify the sources
Fix any minor grammatical errors

Update[edit]

Jsjsjs1111, I do think a number of aspects of this article need to be improved before it can be passed as stated above. There hasn't been much editing or communication from you, so I'm going to fail this review. This article is written very well and I particularly thank you and other editors for writing it in an easily-accessible way. That said a number of references do need to be updated to ensure that the information is up-to-date. I encourage you to renominate when the sources have been updated and reviewed (best would be is if you could find one or two other reviews to replace a number of RCTs used here). Kind regards, --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:22, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! Sorry I've been busy recently and unable to do much on this article. (It's jsjsjs1111 in IP)14.202.52.129 (talk) 01:32, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]