Talk:Long COVID/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 14:20, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Comments

This is a welcome article on a topical subject. It is very carefully cited and clearly written, and the sources I checked clearly support the claims made, so it is already up to the required standard for Good Articles. Accordingly I have little to say here, but perhaps a few minor points are worth clearing up.

• The acronyms CCS and CDC are defined but never used, so they should be removed: the article is already very heavy on acronyms, so any that we don't need should go.

• The acronyms WHO and NICE are defined and then used just once more, so they could be spelt out in full.

• The source used is reliable but why is WHO itself not used to cite the WHO definition?

• The acronym PASC is defined once in the infobox and again the text, and then used only in a label embedded in the image "File:Similar_degrees_of_ME-CFS_and_long_Covid_symptoms.webp" in "Related illnesses". I think it would be better to remove the acronym from both infobox and main text, and to define it in the image caption, i.e. just below the only place where it is used. (The tidier option would be to remove the label at the top of the image, as we normally don't use such labels, preferring to explain images in searchable text in the form of image captions. I can crop the image if you'd like that.)

• "dual-energy CT" should be spelt out.

• "Issues with increased blood clotting (coagulopathy) are another potential driver ..." - Do you not mean simply that coagulopathy is the driver here?

• Twitter is now called "X" or "X, formerly known as Twitter", or something.

• "People who had been hospitalised with COVID saw a higher prevalence of 54%, while this number dropped to 34% for nonhospitalised people." - doesn't feel quite right. We want to say simply that hospitalised people had a higher prevalence than nonhospitalised people. And the next sentence could end "decreased with time", I think.

• I can't see what [22] Houston Methodist is for, as we have [23] Scientific Reports doing a better job already.

• The sidebox is redundant with the comprehensive navbar at the end of the article, so it's hard to see what function the spacehogging gadget serves. It should probably be taken to XfD and removed everywhere, but that doesn't concern this GAN; this article would definitely be better off without it.

• I can't see why any reader who has located the medical article they want to read would ever wish to go to a random-display portal from a See also section, so the portal box looks like completely useless clutter to me. Feel free to blame me if anyone asks for it back.

• The images appear to be correctly licensed on Commons.

That's about it from me. An excellent article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:20, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words. Have acted on the majority of suggestions, but don't agree with all:

• I've removed CCS, but kept the other abbreviations as they may be more famous than the spelt out names.
• I do cite the WHO for their definition. Note that the Lancet article is the accompanying paper with the case definition.
• I think the word PASC is quite important in this space, so I have a weak preference for keeping it. I think a cropped image would be nice however :).
• For dual-energy CT, I've changed it to dual-energy CT scan. I believe the term "CT scan" is better known than computed tomography
• Have removed the jargon coagulopathy because it can mean different things anyway. The description is more precise
• Twitter is still more famous as Twitter, as was called Twitter when the events here happened, so I think adding X will reduce prose quality
• People who had been hospitalised with COVID saw a higher prevalence of 54%, while this number dropped to 34% for nonhospitalised people --> "People who had been hospitalised with COVID saw a higher prevalence of 54%, while 34% of nonhospitalised people developed long COVID after acute infection". Better? I've removed the second bit of the sentence, as I misread the source.
• Removed Houston, sidebox and portals.

—Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:11, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Super. It's a GA. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:57, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.