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.

Parkinson's disease[edit]

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.