Talk:Cholera

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Cholera was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
April 12, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Medicine (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that this article follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Microbiology (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microbiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Microbiology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
 
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5 / Vital
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
 
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is a vital article.

Cholera "Society and Culture" Section[edit]

I am planning on making some changes to the existing “Cholera” article for a class project, and I would appreciate any advice/suggestions you might have.

I would like to add a “society and culture” section to this article. This section will include information about the role governments play on the prevention and spread of cholera, and other socio-economic factors that influence its spread. I think it is important to make these connections because if cholera spreads, there are serious economic and social political repercussions for the country. Governments also play an important role in preventing/ helping cholera spread, an important connection that is not always made. As the current Wikipedia article on “Cholera” notes, the disease is pretty much under control in developed nations. However, it is still a huge issue in developing countries. This is a highly relevant topic, since cholera prevention in developed countries shows it can be stopped, but recent outbreaks in poorer countries show that it is still occurring, when it does not need to be. The amounts of cholera outbreaks have actually risen in some countries-like Haiti- over the past few years. This makes exploring it’s spread a highly relevant topic. Does anyone have thoughts about creating a “society and culture” section? In this section, I will summarize a lot of existing Wikipedia articles related to cholera, like “Cholera Outbreaks and Epidemics,” “Cholera Vaccine,” “Zimbabwean Cholera Outbreak,” and “2010-13 Haiti Cholera Outbreak.” What other topics do you think should be covered in a “society and culture” section on Wikipedia?

Is it ok if I delete the existing subsections called “Enrichment Media” and “Planting Media” (under Diagnosis)? There are no references, and I am not sure if the information is accurate. Are there any other sections of this article you think need serious revision?

Do you feel that the existing cholera article has any unnecessary information that should be taken out? Any really important information/sections I should work on adding?

Kimmyfromtexas (talk) 11:49, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Kimmy, I hope you are not feeling too discouraged. Editing new information into an existing article can be very difficult--I think that it is sometimes easier to write a brand new article than to try to edit an existing one. Plus, if the student has not first spent a (perhaps) great deal of time learning the basics of the article rather than just spend time on the section that they plan to write about, it is really obvious in their edits and something I see again and again...like an essay tacked on at the end of the article. That said, I believe that the idea for your addition is excellent and something that is important to me in our medical articles. Just coming here from the appendicitis article, I have to wonder if we are writing our medical articles for med students who are, hopefully, using their text books for information rather than Wikipedia, or for the general public. Gandydancer (talk) 00:31, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
As an afterthought, when I do my edits I have found that after I think I'm about done I go through and delete everything that is not absolutely needed, and I've found that I often end up with about half of what I started out with. Gandydancer (talk) 00:49, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Sari cloth[edit]

I've removed the following text because a) it uses a primary source (please see WP:MEDRS), but more importantly, it is too closely paraphrased. Please find a secondary review, and paraphrase in our own words. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:14, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Laboratory tests have shown that using 1 to 4 layers of sari cloth to filter pond and river water containing V. cholerae attached to small crustacean zooplanktonic copepods and particulate matter reduces the number of V. cholerae bacteria in the water by 90%. Four layers of sari cloth were considered optimal for water filtration, since it consistently removed >99% of the bacteria, but 2 or 3 layers were approximately equally effective. In 2005 a field trial using cotton sari cloth was performed; village women were taught how to use folded cotton sari cloth or nylon mesh to filter their daily water. A third group of villagers, receiving no instruction with respect to filtration of their water, served as the control group. Results of the field trial showed that the number of cholera cases was reduced approximately 50% in the group using cotton sari cloth to filter water, with nylon filtration slightly less effective and also very expensive compared to sari cloth. http://mbio.asm.org/content/1/1/e00034-10.full http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/14/world/old-sari-cloth-filters-cholera-study-finds.html
It seems just common sense to me that one need not be so concerned about wording too close when one is taking information from a study as compared to other published sources, but it seems that I am wrong on that. As for using this large primary study, IMO it is going beyond the meaning of our med article guidelines to say that it is not appropriate. I will leave this article to those who better understand the guidelines and are more experienced than I. Gandydancer (talk) 01:39, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
There was one textbook there that is sort of WPMEDRS. Not great but okay. I have restored some of the previous wording and will try to improve it tonight.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:25, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes these edits do contain extensive copy and pasting [1] with text in bold being exactly the same.

Ref says [2] "When this method was tested in the laboratory, using 1 to 4 layers of sari cloth to filter pond and river water containingV. cholerae attached to small crustacean zooplanktonic copepods and particulate matter, this simple procedure successfully reduced the number of V. choleraebacteria by 2 log units (10–12). Whether 1, 2, 3, or 4 layers of sari cloth was used as a filter, the number of V. cholerae bacteria in the water was reduced by ca. 90%. Four layers of sari cloth were considered optimal for water filtration, since it consistently removed >99% of the bacteria, but 2 or 3 layers were approximately equally effective (10). After the laboratory-based tests were completed, a field trial using cotton sari cloth was performed, and as a reference, a commercially available nylon material that was used to eradicate dracunculiasis in Africa was included. Both were field tested for efficacy in reducing cholera in Matlab, Bangladesh. That is, village women responsible for collecting water, in a population of 30,000 (15,000 in each group, one group using sari filters and the other using nylon filters), were taught how to use folded cotton sari cloth or nylon mesh to filter their daily water. A third group of 15,000 villagers, receiving no instruction with respect to filtration of their water, served as the control group. Results of the field trial showed that the number of cholera cases was reduced approximately 50% in the group using cotton sari cloth to filter water at the time of collection, with nylon filtration slightly less effective and also very expensive compared to sari cloth "

Content added "Laboratory tests have shown that using 1 to 4 layers of sari cloth to filter pond and river water containing V. cholerae attached to small crustacean zooplanktonic copepods and particulate matter reduces the number of V. cholerae bacteria in the water by 90%. Four layers of sari cloth were considered optimal for water filtration, since it consistently removed >99% of the bacteria, but 2 or 3 layers were approximately equally effective. In 2005 a field trial using cotton sari cloth was performed; village women were taught how to use folded cotton sari cloth or nylon mesh to filter their daily water. A third group of villagers, receiving no instruction with respect to filtration of their water, served as the control group. Results of the field trial showed that the number of cholera cases was reduced approximately 50% in the group using cotton sari cloth to filter water, with nylon filtration slightly less effective and also very expensive compared to sari cloth"

Now it is an open access publication but not one compatible with Wikipedia. At the bottom it says "Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License, which permits unrestricted noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited." Always best to rephrase and simplify to stay out of trouble. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:50, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Zinc supplementation[edit]

This edit is cut-and-pasted from this source. Even if public domain, this is still plagiarism (see WP:PLAGIARISM). Gandydancer, please be more careful to include cut-and-paste text in quotes or to rephrase in your own words (I am aware that you have done this on other articles). Jmh649 has already corrected this instance. I do not have a copy of the Lancet article; will someone pls review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:45, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

My understanding of public domain material is that anyone can copy and paste it without necessarily using quotes. It is always a good idea to paraphrase as that wording was not really encyclopedic in style. With CC BY SA material you need to state where you got it from in the edit summary but do not necessarily need to quote it. That is why we can move around material from one article to another. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:39, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Review WP:PLAGIARISM on how we must attribute public domain text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:25, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Ah thanks. Good to know. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:42, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem[edit]

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Diannaa (talk) 22:58, 29 June 2014 (UTC)