Talk:Cancer and nausea/GA1

GA toolbox
Copyvio detector Authorship External links
Reviewing
Templates Criteria Instructions

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

Reviewer: LT910001 (talk · contribs) 13:33, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not ready for GA status. I would be very reticent (as I am sure other reviewers would be) to promote a new article with a single editor without waiting at least a couple of months for the involvement of other editors. This article does moreover lack pictures, is not structured as recommended by MEDMOS, is very title heavy, and is very technical. This is not to say that it won't be ready one day, but Rome wasn't built in a day. I wish you all the best in your future editing, LT90001 (talk) 13:33, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This was edited by me to more properly reflect my feelings about a GA review at this stage. LT90001 (talk) 13:36, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review, that was fast. I agree the article is not ready for GA at this stage and I was hoping for the involvement of other editors before a GA review which in my experience normally takes at least a couple of weeks to find a reviewer. I will look into the structure as per MEDMOS as suggested and generally continue to improve the article as we wait for the involvement of interested editors. As for pictures, I could not find any pictures on cancer, vomiting and nausea that seemed appropriate. Ochiwar (talk) 14:04, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree this article does not meet GA standards currently. It needs better adherence to WP:MOS, some copyediting for clarity, and I see some questionable use of primary sources. Although the GA standards indicate their use, images of vomiting would be... nice... relevant, technically... yuck.

  I understand that this article was placed in the GA queue early, before the nom thought it ready for GA. The placing of an article in the GA queue early with the expectation that you'll have a few weeks to work on it before it gets picked up is an interesting strategy, and I can't say I blame Ochiwar for doing it! However with that strategy you do run the risk of having it picked up before it's really ready... We really do need more GA reviewers.

  I want to note here that there is absolutely no requirement that an article must have multiple editors or be a certain number of days or weeks old before it can be nominated. I'm pretty sure there's quite a few botany articles that were written over just a few days by one editor and nominated and passed for GA, and they are genuine well-written WP:GA-compliant good articles written by some of our best and most prolific content creators--this is pretty typical during WP:WIKICUP. Zad68 14:42, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]