Talk:Amygdalohippocampectomy

message: I am not sure whether the GA pass tag was put on by mistake. The article is not on  GA list and the tag was put on without any commmunity discussion. I will be quite happy to nominate it if above issues are met.--Countincr ( t@lk ) 22:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA 

message: This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of October 21, 2007, compares against the  six good article criteria:
:1. Well written?: Needs major expansion. Anatomy of brain with a focus on the temporal lobe is essential for this topic. Also one needs to mention functions and pathological features. Review WP:MEDMOS guidelines.
:2. Factually accurate?: Need more statistical data such as  , , citation style do not conform WP:CITE.
:3. Broad in coverage?: What are the indications and contraindications for the surgery? What are the criteria for patient selection? A brief description of the procedure is also required.
:4. Neutral point of view?: Just one study result is reported although a quick search in Pubmed gives 154 hits.
:5. Article stability? 
:6. Images?: More images and diagrams are required, if possible one showing the surgical procedure.
When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated.  If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a Good article reassessment.  Thank you for your work so far. 
— Countincr ( t@lk ) 22:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you.  I'll be doing more work on it tonight.  Mercury 18:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Failed "good article" nomination

message: Based on the very few edits and differences between the current version and the october reviewed version, this article has quite a way to go before GA. The only real difference I see is that 'statistics' and 'side effects' were combined, and 'procedure' was taken out of the lead. Nonetheless, the lead is still way too short, there is no information in the article on the history or development of the procedure (when was this started? who pioneered this?). The two images provided don't really help to get a good idea of exactly what's going on.
I don't see why statistics and side effects were combined? Plus, the section seems very short, and could be greatly expanded. If there are 154 hits in pubmed for this, I think wikipedia can do a much better job at describing this operation.
On the bright side, the article does seem to meet the citation guidelines of the GA criteria, as it is more than adequately referenced. But I'm afraid this article is still in need of major expansion. At this stage, it's far too early to list every single issue with it, since there's just too much to mention. I'd start by making sure it's in compliance with WP:MEDMOS. Dr. Cash (talk) 17:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you.  I'll be doing more work on it tonight.  Mercury 18:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA quick fail

message: I'm at a loss, any ideas? Mercury 02:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expansion 

message: Visited this page during a review of nursing wikiproject articles.  I don't think there is any need to have the page in two projects; the primary interest is medicine/surgery.  I have removed the article from WP:NURSE.  If you disagree, please leave a note here so we can discuss it. Cheers, Basie (talk) 13:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article removed from [[WP:NURSE]]