I thought about it some more, and I think the basic issue between us is a philosophical one.  I'll bet you think that the cancer article is "done," so all it really needs are references.  I will further venture to guess that you feel this way because you wrote a good part of the article.  I, on the other hand, do not feel that it is anywhere near "done," though I do think it is "good."  It doesn't have the depth that a truly great article will have, in that it does not yet reflect the state of knowledge about a topic.  There are thin, weak areas that need more text, and I think we are a ways away from touching the bottom here, so this is the real reason why I think references are not quite enough.  So, nothing against all the hard work you've no doubt put in to this point; there's just a long ways to go.