Login
Login

Talk:Oxygen toxicity/GA2

GA Review

:This review is transcluded from Talk:Oxygen toxicity/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the 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)