# Talk:Basic Medicine

This review is transcluded from Talk:Basic Medicine/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: David Eppstein (talk · contribs) 22:54, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

 
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 
No issues with prose quality
B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 
The lead contains several claims: (1) founding date, (2) publisher, (3) level of quality. These are appropriate content for the body of the article, and should be moved there. The lead should only summarize content from the body, not make new claims.
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 
Citations are consistently formatted as short footnotes pointing to a separate section of Citation Style 1 references
B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines: 
The four sources (including the Korean news article, viewed through translation) appear reliable. Three include in-depth material directly about this journal; the fourth is a news story about one of its articles. As an article about a publication, rather than about medicine more directly, I do not think the stricter standards of WP:MEDRS should be applied to this article.
C. It contains no original research: 
Most of the claims in the article checked out as an accurate representation of the sources, but there is one that I am unsure about. In "Research", our article states "hurt by the rise of drug-resistant mosquitos". In the source, it talks about drug-resistant malaria protozoa, not drug-resistant mosquitos. Can you check and correct, please?
D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 
Neither Earwig nor my source checks found any significant copying.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 
This is a short article, but I'm amazed that you managed to expand it this far with appropriate sourcing. Most strong western journals do not have this level of coverage and analysis. So I think the length and depth of coverage is as good as or better than we can reasonably expect.
B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 
The only potential 3b content would be the final paragraph of "Research", covering specific articles in the journal. But as it is properly sourced and a small part of the overall article, I don't think this is problematic.
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 
There is some editorial opinion (particularly about not being up to an international standard) but this is properly sourced and I think not particularly controversial.
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 
No significant controversy visible on the article's talk page or history.
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content: 
The cover image was uploaded to commons, where it appears headed for deletion (the correct outcome if it is deemed to have enough creative content to be copyrightable). However, it also exists locally, as a fair-use image with what appears to be a valid fair-use rationale.
B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 
The article is illustrated only by a fair-use image of its cover page, typical of and appropriate for an article on a journal
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
Please address issues listed in 1b and 2c. If you need time to do so please let me know and I can put this review on hold to give you that time. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:21, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
@David Eppstein I've addressed 2C. Regarding 1B, the MOS guideline on lede sections states that, [a]part from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article. I believe stating the founding year and publisher falls within "basic facts" and since there isn't any more information available on the history of the journal, I don't think a background/history section would be justified. As for the sentence about North Korean medical journals, I've incorporated into the rest of the article. Cheers! :3 F4U (they/it) 06:31, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Ok, I can accept that. All issues addressed; passing. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:25, 8 July 2023 (UTC)