Talk:Tuberculosis

PaullTas (talk) 04:23, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Seminar

The Lancet have a seminar in print (doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(10)62173-3) that might be useful for updating the article. JFW | T@lk 07:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

First skim of the page "look"

Layout looks a little scattershot and some of the images seem poor as well. Has a big effect on someone seeing page for first time.

Image on top needs an explanation of the white and black marks on X-ray. More debatable, but perhaps w-linking x-ray not needed in this day and age and for an article not on imaging itself. The other thing is it's actually a hard image to quicky look at and grok the disease for general public. I'm a smart guy, but don't know what to look for. Think putting it lower in article and then explaining it (under diagnosis or whatever) would be better. The picture of the evil looking B&W bacterium would work well as an iconic lead image, that does not need a lot of clunky caption analytical explanation.

The list of external links seems clunky in it;s blueness and letter-number inexplicability, for a general reader. Would be better in a table towards the end or just in External links, formally. Doing that, would also allow junking the infobox and just having a lead image.

Symptoms is way to small. Would display it centered and larger. Also seems a little confusing. That said, it is kind of cool looking visually and the method of using a body to point out various symptom areas is helpful visual summary.

I can't understand the genus organization. (are there X-Y axes? Is it some sort of PCA representation of differentness?). That and it's also very blurry and should be drawn in SVG (image help desk is great at Wiki). But maybe just a basic branching tree would work well. Would this fit better in the article on the bacterium?

The red and yellow photo is pretty. Would like to add a scale though. And probably a little more in caption or section text to get a "so what". Is it just an optical version of the SEM picture?

High burden map should be bigger. Could use it centered to start the section, but no push.

Age standardized death is painful with how 80% of the image space is for the KEY. There are ways to clean that up with a colored bar or other tricks. Would upsize it a bit too.

Do we need a prevelance AND death map? They roughly correlate. Plus given the map before we have 3 similar maps now. And if it is important to show this, we should use the SAME color scale as the map before (yellow is good on one and bad on the other). If you have same rough scale, at least then we can see where the two aspect are not correlated. If this compare and contrast is really important, maybe a side by side would be good also (will also help with the text wrapping issues because you're not going down the gutter as much then).

I like the X-Y line graph for diversity of a visual. And it is simple clear content. But is too small to read the fonts of the axes, needs a redraw or an upsize. Also, this content seems similar to the high burden--time dimension as opposed to geo dimension of new cases--should they be near each other?

Mummy, public health and Kochs pictures look great and are nice variety.

Haven't looked at the article text itself to think about what aspects need illustration. FWIW, may be some other helpful images easily available (just on Commons, not doing Flickr or donations or any of that): [1]

Haven't looked at licencing.

TCO (talk) 05:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

As with many frequently edited articles, editors chunk in random unnecessary images over time. Here is the version that passed FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

File:TB poster.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:TB poster.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

World Health Organization Recommends Ban on TB Blood Test

It is reported today on the BBC that the TB blood test commonly used in much of the world should be banned entirely, on the grounds that it fails to provide the correct diagnosis 50% of the time (in both directions), and that it is unethically marketed to the Third World, as this error is known to be the case.

The test kits are manufactured by eighteen companies in Europe and North America.

I am not sufficiently skilled to make edits to Wikipedia articles, so I leave the information here for those more capable. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-14234575 James K. 71.50.19.103 (talk) 23:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC) 71.50.19.103 (talk) 23:46, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Still working?

Are editors still working on this article in response to the comments at the featured article review? If so, could you please place an update there? There have been several comments on the review page regarding comprehensiveness, organizations, contradictory material, sourcing, etc., that as far as I can tell have not been addressed. This article is in danger of being delisted from featured status unless interested editors reappear and more work is completed in the near future. Dana boomer (talk) 15:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Update: Article de-listed 9/26/11. Discussion here: F.A.R/archive -Anon98 98.92.184.116 (talk) 07:18, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Fix

That such an important article has fallen into disarray is unfortunate. Will see if I can fix it.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:23, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

We have a great 2011 Lancet review here

• Lawn, SD; Zumla, AI (2011 Jul 2). "Tuberculosis.". Lancet 378 (9785): 57-72. PMID 21420161. 
• Escalante, P (2009 Jun 2). "In the clinic. Tuberculosis.". Annals of internal medicine 150 (11): ITC61-614; quiz ITV616. PMID 19487708. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Vampires

I am removing the following text:

"Furthermore, people who had TB exhibited symptoms similar to what people considered to be vampire traits. People with TB often have symptoms such as red, swollen eyes (which also creates a sensitivity to bright light), pale skin and coughing blood, suggesting the idea that the only way for the afflicted to replenish this loss of blood was by sucking blood."

This is not supported by the reference it is attached to and also seems to be describing the modern vampire with its pale skin and aversion to sunlight.

The folkloric vampire is the exact opposite of someone with tuberculosis.

"These vampires were corpses, who went out of their graves at night to suck the blood of the living, either at their throats or stomachs, after which they returned to their cemeteries. The persons so sucked waned, grew pale, and fell into consumption; while the sucking corpses grew fat, got rosy, and enjoyed an excellent appetite. It was in Poland, Hungary, Silesia, Moravia, Austria, and Lorraine, that the dead made this good cheer." - Voltaire http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vampire#Medieval_and_later_European_folklore

--69.169.137.62 (talk) 06:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

PVN Acharya's and Dexter Goldman's TB Article on Chemical COmposition of the cell wall.

I would like to re -add this article form 1970

It is from a respectable, reliable journal. Although it is more than 3-5 years old, there are numerous articles on this page far older than that. Further, I put this article on here years ago and have only recently encountered this opposition. (RaghuVAcharya (talk) 19:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC))

The citation is unnecessary (WP:CITEKILL), is old (against WP:MEDRS) and per your own statements here and on other pages, is being used to promote your family member's research. This is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Yobol (talk) 18:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Yobol. Graham Colm (talk) 18:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok. This article in particular has been cited so many times anyway that the world probably knows about it. Thanks and have a jolly good show. (RaghuVAcharya (talk) 18:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC))

I have noticed that Reference 81 is a one page article by Schoenlein, about impetiginous lesions, but does not mention Tuberculosis. The information about him being the first to name the disease can be found in <Arnholdt, Robert, Johann Lukas Schönlein als Tuberkulosearzt,[Johann Lukas Schönlein, the Tuberculosis Doctor]In: Bayerisches Ärzteblatt 1978, S. 702-707> PaullTas (talk) 04:23, 2 March 2012 (UTC)