Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Parkinson's disease/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 21:24, 28 April 2007.

64 In-line Citations. --Khunter 10:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I think in some articles in-line citations are more appropriate.Maowang 15:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. This article has been unstable since General Tojo started to promote his views on it, leading to constant disruption, sockpuppetry, edit wars over trivial stuff etc. I cannot guarantee much of the present content. I will not approve the present version without an outside review by a neurologist with an interest in movement disorders. JFW | T@lk 15:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose due to stability concerns, as per JFW. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for now. there are problems with the prose mainly, though fixable.

• Para 3 of lead is clunky and needs some massaging. PS: Should say that it is a chronic progressive degenerative disorder in first sentence (which it is)

• History section is very brief, as are some others but this could do with some expanding.

• Symptoms section intro needs expanding and organizing so it isn't just a list and some parentheses

• The para on dopamine pathways in the 'pathology section doesn't read well and needs rewriting. not sure how I'd do this though.

• In the gene therapy section there must be another way of writing "harmless virus" as that doesn't gel with the formal language of the rest of the article

• ..and finally is a bit light on references

On the plus side, it is comprehensive and well laid out, so overall I think it is remediable provided these things get fixed and I'll happily change my vote when they are dealt with. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 13:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, not nearly ready. Suggest a peer review, followed by submitting GAC, then re-approach FAC. Consulting WP:MEDMOS may help. The article is very scantily cited, and there are stability concerns. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.