Talk:CT scan/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: David Eppstein (talk · contribs) 20:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

This is not quite a drive-by nomination but the reviewer has only made one small change to the article before nominating, and has not addressed its more significant issues in need of cleanup.

• The article is not well structured: there are many sections, but the overall section hierarchy does not make sense.

• The lead has too many paragraphs, and makes claims that are not found anywhere in the text of the article.  Done

• The first paragraph of the "Lungs" section is unsourced, as is the first bullet point of the "Cardiac" section and the entire "Abdominal and pelvic" and "Biomechanical use" sections.  Done

• The "Advantages" section has been peppered with many "citation needed" tags since 2020.  Done

• The last 1 1/2 paragraphs of "Abdominal and pelvic" and "Contrast reactions" are unsourced.

• The "Process" section is a huge undigestible paragraph that is mostly unsourced.

• Sentences at the ends of "Geological use", "Contrast", "Scan dose", "Radiation dose units", "Effects of radiation", and "Presentation" are unsourced.  Done

• The last paragraph of "Grayscale" and the last four paragraphs of "Multiplanar reconstruction and projections" are unsourced.

• The entire "Volume rendering" section is unsourced.  Done

• Several paragraphs in "Image quality" are unsourced.  Done

• The "Etymology" section has three unsourced paragraphs, one with another stale "citation needed" tag.  Done

• The "Types of machines" section is mostly unsourced.  Done

Overall, I think there may be a lot of excessive detail in the article. It needs to take a higher-level view of the subject.

As such, I think this meets WP:GAFAIL criteria #1 (it is a long way from being properly sourced) and #3 (it has large numbers of citation needed tags that are still valid). It was not ready for a GA nomination and should not be re-nominated until these issues are addressed.

—David Eppstein (talk) 20:19, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Added References to Lungs section. Iflaq ^(talk) 12:12, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Added References to Etymology section. Iflaq ^(talk) 18:29, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.