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

Reviewer: Tom (LT) (talk · contribs) 16:53, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @SpicyMilkBoy, well met. Thanks for your edits to this article, I'll review it according to the good article criteria. I edit in the medicine / anatomy space and you can see other nominations that I've reviewed on my talk page. I'll spend a few days familiarising myself with the article and post my review then.--Tom (LT) (talk) 16:53, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tom, I appreciate it. Looking forward to the GA review :) SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 16:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Review

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Done
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Done
	2c. it contains no original research.	No OR
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Done no copyvio on Earwig's
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

Commentary

Comments below: --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:44, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• A great article, really easy to read and very well phrased. I really commend you for this; I cannot imagine an article that has been written as well as this one, so kudos.
• Some domains (copyvio check, references check) pending
  • Addit: no problemso Earwig's. References all up to date and from reliable sources.
• I have passed the article, but here are just a few things that I think could be improved if you would like:
  • Suggest remove "routine" from "routine medical examination" as you already say it's commonly ordered and it's also ordered in other medical examinations.
    •  Done Spicy (talk) 01:09, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just being picky here: "The test may also be ordered if a healthcare provider suspects a person has a medical condition that affects blood cells, such as anemia, bleeding disorders, infection or cancer"
  • Suggest reword to "bleeding disorders due to platelets" (as other disorders won't show abnormalities) and "some cancers" as most solid tumours don't cause significant abnormalities of the blood count. Also, what would your thoughts be about adding "other inflammatory conditions" as these are another common cause
    •  Partly done Added "inflammatory conditions" and "some cancers". I'm not sure about "bleeding disorders due to platelets", because that implies that the clinician would know whether or not the bleeding is due to a platelet disorder prior to ordering a CBC, as opposed to using it to rule in/out platelet issues in someone with general symptoms of a bleeding disorder. Spicy (talk) 01:09, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use of 'CBC' - it's only used a few times in the article. I would recommend rewordint it to 'complete blood count' just to make the article more readable and remove an unnecessary acronym.
    •  Done I've reworded it in the body of the article but kept the acronym in the infobox and captions for brevity. Spicy (talk) 01:09, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Automated' - "In the white blood cell channel, a reagent lyses the red cells so that white blood cells can be analyzed more easily". Suggest like other sections, add some other terms to explain what a reagent and lyses is. Such as "a substance added to the sample (a reagent) destroys (lyses) the red blood cells..."
    •  Done Reworded to "a reagent chemical is added to the sample to destroy (lyse) the red cells so that white blood cells can be analyzed more easily." Spicy (talk) 01:09, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Included tests' - some parts mention the tests only, others mention tests + pathology. To make this standardised, I would probably add in the Hb section that low Hb is an indicator of anaemia; and haematocrit can be influenced by dilution, dehydration and anaemia (as the main causes in my mind, anyway)
    •  Doing... Will do this shortly. Spicy (talk) 01:09, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Interpretation of results' - suggest link "blast cells"
    •  Done I remembered why I didn't do that originally: the article on blast cells is not good and does not discuss any of the hematological aspects. Those aspects are covered at lymphoblast and myeloblast, but it would be inappropriate to link "blast cells" in general to a specific type of blast. I guess the blast cell article explains that it's an immature cell, at least, so that's somewhat helpful. Spicy (talk) 01:09, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Interpretation of results' - two columns in the table (RBC and WBC) have colons; the others don't.
    •  Done Spicy (talk) 01:09, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Schematics (also called "fishbones") of shorthand for complete blood count commonly used by clinicians". I am not sure if this is commonly used - I have never seen it used in my jurisdiction; needs a reliable source.
    •  Doing... yeah, I never liked that image or its caption, but it was originally the lead image for the article and I felt bad about getting rid of it. Will look for a source for the caption and if I can't find one, I'll use a different image. Spicy (talk) 01:09, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Overall this is an excellent article and I want to compliment you again on writing something so readable. Would recommend you consider putting it up for featured article nomination (or ask an experienced editor for a brief review) because I feel it must be quite close. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:25, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the review! I will address your comments shortly. Re. FA... I've been thinking about it, but IMO the article will require substantial work first, especially for the comprehensiveness aspect - there are a couple topics I haven't covered here, like the reticulocyte count (which I never really considered to be part of the CBC but many sources seem to), experimental/research parameters such as these, drawbacks of use as a general screening test... I figured it wasn't necessary to cover these minor topics at GA level but it's probably necessary for FA. I am also not good at all the nitpicky stuff about citation formatting, tables, dashes, commas and so on, so I would want an experienced FA writer to go through it with a fine toothed comb first. But I really appreciate your encouragement and I'll keep it in mind for the future :) Spicy (talk) 00:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tom (LT) I've responded to your comments. Thanks again :) Spicy (talk) 01:09, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]