Talk:Gestational diabetes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess.
B	This page has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance assessment scale

Gestational diabetes was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. Reviewed version: December 1, 2007

[edit] Older Comments

This article on Gestational Diabetes seems rather simple and almost incomplete, especially compated to the article on Diabetes Mellitus. I would like to recommend that it recieve a "stub" tag asking visitors to help complete the article. 67.5.53.224 21:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)Jeffrey

I added a "prognosis" section to more fully explain how this condition resolves after the pregnancy. It more accurately describes some of the information in the "Associated Conditions" section. I think the "Associated Conditions" section could be removed now, since the information is present elsewhere in the article. --Caffeinebump 02:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA review comments

A few suggestions to improve the article:

1. The prose is often unclear, especially in technical passages. For example, from the pathophysiology section: The hallmark of GDM is increased insulin resistance; because other factors interfere with the action of insulin (at the level of the cell signaling behind the insulin receptor), it cannot get into the cells properly, so the blood level rises. What does it mean that the "blood level rises"?

The article needs a good close read-through to make sure that the text will make sense to an educated layman.

1. The lists (of risk factors and screening tests) should be converted to prose.
2. The article is skewed toward coverage of screening tests. I would suggest creating new articles for each of the tests or perhaps one article for all of them, and using summary style to include relevant information in the main article. For the future, it would probably be a good idea to focus on expanding the pathology and epidemiology sections and paring down some of the other sections by removing non-specific information and combining sentences. (For example Any diet needs to provide sufficient calories for pregnancy. The main goal of dietary modifications is to avoid peaks in blood sugar levels. becomes Dietary interventions in GDM must provide sufficient calories to support pregnancy while avoiding peaks in blood sugar levels.)
3. The article needs a thorough copy-edit. I've fixed spelling errors and grammar through the epidemiology section, but the rest needs to be checked for the type of errors I found above: subject-verb agreement, punctuation, etc.

Feel free to ask questions or give comments here or on my talk page. Cheers, --Gimme danger 02:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your time, your great copy-editing and your thorough analysis. I almost completely agree with you. I have some concerns though about creating seperate articles for the individual tests. An article about the oral glucose tolerance test exists already. The others probably don't deserve an article, because such an article would be very small, and probably identical to what a featured article on gestational diabetes should contain. I agree that this article is skewed towards screening, although I think that might be somewhat intrinsic to the subject. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 01:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)