<article_title>Antibody</article_title>
<edit_user>TimVickers</edit_user>
<edit_time>Saturday, March 31, 2007 12:18:04 AM CEST</edit_time>
<edit_comment>/* RHOGAM antibodies */ add ref</edit_comment>
<edit_text>RHOGAM antibodies
RHOGAM antibodies are a trade name for Rho(D) Immune Globulin antibodies specific to the human Rh D antigen.<strong>&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite journal |author=Fung Kee Fung K, Eason E, Crane J, Armson A, De La Ronde S, Farine D, Keenan-Lindsay L, Leduc L, Reid G, Aerde J, Wilson R, Davies G, Désilets V, Summers A, Wyatt P, Young D |title=Prevention of Rh alloimmunization |journal=J Obstet Gynaecol Can |volume=25 |issue=9 |pages=765-73 |year=2003 |pmid=12970812}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;</strong>  They normally administered as part of a pre-natal treatment regimen to prevent any sensitization that may occur when a Rhesus-negative mother has a fetus that is Rhesus-positive. The Rhesus factor (a.k.a. D antigen) is an antigen found on red blood cells in the blood. It is the second most significant risk issue in a blood transfusion, next to the ABO blood type. People that are Rh+ have this antigen on their red blood cells. People that are Rh- don't have this antigen on their red blood cells.</edit_text>
<turn_user>DO11.10<turn_user>
<turn_time>Saturday, March 31, 2007 12:00:21 AM CEST</turn_time>
<turn_topicname>GA nomination</turn_topicname>
<turn_topictext>H'mmm, I'm thinking this article is a little bit weak on the refs. I'll try and add some in when I can....anyone else able to help push this up to standard?? Thanks, Ciar 23:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC) I'd be happy to help out, let me know if you need anything special. First on my list will be to find some GOOD external links, hopefully to discourage some of the spamming.--DO11.10 00:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC) As far as references go, this article is pretty good, for GA standard. I don't know how much you've done since 31 March, but it seems to be up to scratch. The only thing I am a little concerned about is the use of jargon in this article, however, as most of the jargon is blue-linked, that is OK for GA. The structure is consistent and well ordered. The lead section, while a little complex, does provide a suitable overview for the article. As for stability, I can see there have been a lot of vandalism on this page in the past few hours, but otherwise the page is pretty stable, so I'm happy with that. Obviously, some school somewhere is using Wikipedia as a resource. GA review (see here for criteria)It is reasonably well written.a (prose): b (MoS): It is factually accurate and verifiable.a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): It is broad in its coverage.a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy.a (fair representation): b (all significant views): It is stable.It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales): Overall: a Pass/Fail: So, as you can see, I am happy to pass this article to GA. It contains a good amount of well-structured, reliably sourced information that would be useful to many users. If you want to take this article further, I would recommend trying to cut down on the amount of jargon used in the article and using simpler prose, for example "similar" instead of "analogous", to make it easier to understand. Don't go overboard though. Also, the lead section could do with some restructuring, perhaps to find a more suitable place for that second paragraph. I would strongly suggest you get a peer review of this article and try and get as many editors as you can to comment, so as you can see where to go from here, before making any major changes. Otherwise, well done! Smomo 14:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)</turn_topictext>
<turn_text>I'd be happy to help out, let me know if you need anything special. First on my list will be to find some GOOD external links, hopefully to discourage some of the spamming.</turn_text>