Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine

Proposal to add an edit notice to every medical article

I propose adding this edit notice to every medical article. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

For everyone or just non logged in or new users? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Anthony but I don't support that. For a start it is way too long and I don't want to have to scroll down a screenful every time I click edit. It includes non-medical-article editing advice that if you think people need reminding of every time they click edit, then this forum isn't the place to ask. Some of it repeats the text below your edit window anyway. I don't think the opening sentence will be acceptable on the encyclopaedia anyone can edit because it asks the reader to treat every medical article like it was semi protected. I don't agree with the recommendation to use those cite templates. Colin°^Talk 13:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I would support something that is medicine specific regarding referencing and a couple of sentences long at most. Agree we do not need to give general advice.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:25, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

James, I guess all users.

Thank you for your detailed and thoughtful criticism, Colin. I understand your concern about scrolling down for every edit. We could add a button that permanently dismisses the edit note when a logged-in user clicks it, like we have for fundraising ads.

Regarding the non-medical-article editing advice you criticise, if you'll copy the text you're referring to here, I'll be very happy to tell you why I think it's essential for a serious scholar who would like to contribute correctly first time to a medical article.

Yes, some of it repeats the text below the edit window. But that patchwork of bad layout below the edit window is unreadable. However, if there's some way of removing the duplication from below the box for medical articles that have this edit note, then I guess we should do that.

As for whether this is the correct forum to float this proposal, we disagree.

On the edit note's opening clause, "The easiest way to edit this article is to go to its discussion page and persuade the regulars to add the content for you," I see nothing wrong with that. It's not asking permission, it's asking a favour. It happens all the time, and I'd like to see a lot more of it. If they're too busy or lazy or non techie to quickly master wikicode, at least they've mooted the idea on the talk page. Often such comments or requests get acted upon.

I accept your criticism regarding citation templates, in fact, this is an older version of the template this proposal is based on. The current advice is

Citing sources

• Content not accompanied by an inline "citation" (a footnote marker like this^[14] linked to specified pages in a journal, textbook, etc.) that supports it might be deleted.
• Copy the style of other references in the article and type your reference between <ref> and </ref>. When you save your work, the footnote marker^[14] will appear in the text where you typed the above, and the full reference will appear at the bottom of the article in the list of references.

James, I agree the mini-tutorial is complicated; it is so because the editing process is complicated. As Wikipedia improves its user interface, so, presumably, the tutorial will become shorter. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:25, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the idea of an editnotice for medical articles is a good one, but I agree with Colin's concerns. The editnotice will need to be simple and user-friendly, because in the end we don't want to intimidate or scare off novice editors. I'd suggest something friendly and welcoming, followed by a brief pointer to WP:MEDRS since that's really the only "special" guideline that's unique to medical content. MastCell ^Talk 21:35, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I support the general idea too, as long as the notice isn't too long. I think it would be very useful for those new to editing medical articles to be made aware of MEDRS, as I think this can sometimes be a bit unexpected. One question: how difficult would this be to implement, technically? Jakew (talk) 21:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Is there a precedent for WikiProject-specific edit notices?

I disagree with the statement "The easiest way to edit this article is to go to its discussion page and persuade the regulars to add the content for you". Given the sheer size of WikiProject Medicine and its limited number of editors/page-watchers, is is likely that many edit requests will go unactioned for a while. I believe that the best way to edit the article is to do it yourself. A talk page request should not be presented as the "easiest" way.

A more cynical view is "The laziest way to edit this article is to go to its discussion page and persuade the regulars to add the content for you".

Also, I too am concerned by the length of the notice. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that a pointer to MEDRS would be helpful, but echo the above concerns that we do not want to make (or give the appearance of making) editing medical articles harder. Yobol (talk) 22:53, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, everybody. I'm not aware of a precedent for a category-specific edit notice, Axl. I presume it's doable, and the Foundation will, I'm pretty sure, fund the technical work required to support it. There seems to be no support here for a detailed mini-tutorial, but some support for a pointer to MEDRS and, possibly, something about citation. Have I got that right? If that's the case, once the text is agreed I'll take it to the Foundation and get it implemented. Text suggestions would be appreciated. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest something very simple, along the lines of

Editing Wikipedia's articles on medical topics comes with some special guidance at MOS:MED and WP:MEDRS.

LeadSongDog come howl! 02:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Aside from the TLDR length, the "citing sources" section has me most concerned. Following those directions at an article like Breast cancer awareness means that the editor will be screwing up. Most of our articles happen to use ref tags, but not all of them. Furthermore, in an unref'd article (and we have about a thousand of them), following those directions will produce a scary red error message. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:23, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Those are all good points. Do you have any thoughts on LeadSongDog's suggestion? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I like Lead's suggestion with maybe a short welcome yes you can edit and a brief outline of WP:MEDRS (like we typically use review articles and major textbooks as references rather than primary research studies) however there are exceptions. The main page has a notice above the edit box. And I am sure a bot could add this sort of notice to all medicine related pages.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:42, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

LeadSongDog's suggestion, while brief, isn't grammatically correct and is a general notice rather than one concerning the article they've just pressed [edit] for. AFAIK the most common abbreviation is WP:MEDMOS. But as MastCell says, the only important specific guideline to mention is WP:MEDRS. There's absolutely no need for newbies to have conform to MEDMOS in their first edits. Although a link to MEDMOS could be added ("for advice on style and layout issues concerning medical articles...") I think adding styleguides to an edit-notice would be much harder to get approval for as then every project would want their own style guides promoted that way. Getting citations right is hard and is a general problem for all articles. So I really think that issue should be dealt with by the general WP community.

Looking at the BLP notice, how about:

This article should adhere to the sourcing guidelines for medical subjects.

I suspect whatever we write may not be noticed just like the "Please note" text below the edit window gets ignored. There's only so much we can do. Perhaps it should be red and flashing :-). Colin°^Talk 12:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

First, Dutch pages have all a nl:Template:Disclaimer medisch lemma ('{{Disclaimer medical lemma}}') on top, which I like. I'm not sure whether we have any examples of category or wikiproject-specific edit notices, but for groups of certain interest I would not be against it. BLP's have one because of their status, one could consider that medical pages could have something as well. It would have to be to the point, and not go into the general edit concerns, but concerns specific to medical articles, which, IMHO, is mainly the proper referencing of data, maybe:

Just to notify them that they can't use stuff found on some blog. It would be nice that editors are also following WP:MOS/WP:MEDMOS, but I think the WP:MEDRS-thing is vital. I would be happy if editors add some mis-formatted stuff which is nonetheless 'medically sound' (no pun intended) and properly referenced, then that it is nicely and properly referenced, but totally unreliable and badly referenced. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree (see my post above). To be honest, I think most people don't have a clue what "third-party" means wrt sourcing. WhatAmIDoing is our expert on such wordings and the difficulties people face understanding primary/secondary/tertiary, first/second/third-party, etc. I don't think the notice should go into any details or attempt to nutshell MEDRS or other policies. Just point them to the appropriate guideline(s). I like the (i) icon and think that would help. Colin°^Talk 12:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

That is true, but people will hardly read the notice (but they may), people will for sure not follow a link to a guideline. I see that effect A LOT when I am reverting someone with 'rv per Special:Random' - people re-revert with 'why did you revert my edit?'. I think that if it contains some nutshell wording that that would have more effect. Maybe

? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:19, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the key point we need to get across is "Please use reliable sources as described in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). These typically include review articles and major textbooks published in the last 3-5 years. Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for contributing." I do not think we need a medical disclaimer.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I support the solution proposed by LeadSongDog. It's simple and very much medicine-related, no general advice. NCurse _work 17:02, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

This isn't really appropriate for all of our articles. I'd guess that we more than 2000 biographies within our scope. It also isn't relevant to our many articles about medical schools, biomedical device manufacturers, etc. I'm consequently not sure that we should apply any notice to 100% of the articles we've tagged. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the edit notice should only appear on articles for which its advice is relevant. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:24, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree. BLP articles are much easier to tag, though of course biographical information can appear in non-bio articles too. Our scope is much harder to define, and even within a medical article, not all sections may be in need of MEDRS guidance. Sourcing really isn't as simple as saying "please use recent reviews". That's an easy thing to say for someone with ready access to the best sources. We don't require FA-level sourcing from newbies. Colin°^Talk 22:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

OK. What about

Health-related information in Wikipedia articles should reflect the current consensus in the medical and scientific literature. Ideal sources for medical information are detailed in our sourcing guideline for medical subjects.

? By referring to "health-related information" it includes content in articles that may not be specifically about a medical topic (e.g., lead poisoning in Lead) and also excludes content in medical articles that is not covered by WP:MEDRS. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Why refer to "health-related information" at all? This is an edit notice above a specific article, and isn't going to appear in Lead. So just say "This article...". But overall, I'm not convinced this is worth the effort. Those who come here to push a POV won't be put off by a little notice. And tagging some articles (such as CAM ones) may just cause a whole load of grief. Colin°^Talk 07:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Forget it. This wasn't about the battle between "us" and POV pushers. It was about making it easier for scholars, who can read and understand five paragraphs of clear explanation, to contribute their expertise to an article. As far as effort goes, I offered to shepherd this through. All I needed to know was what do we want to tell new medical editors. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Anthonyhcole, if you're looking to help scholars, then a notice once they've already hit the edit button isn't really the best way. I think our main problem is getting scholars to hit the edit button at all. An edit notice is like the terms and conditions page you automatically click on when you install software. Nobody reads them. Colin°^Talk 12:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. I think a reasonable person would expect to be told how to edit, the first time they click "edit". I realise it's longer than we'd all like it to be but, as I said earlier, that is because the editing process is complicated. I don't believe we should fail to offer new editors an essential tutorial when they first click "edit" just because it's longer than a single sentence. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

As a newbie, the biggest hurdle was hitting that "edit" button for the first time (and that's only partly because I couldn't find the damn thing). Some sort of message like ones suggested above or even an intermediate "fyi" page would not have turned me off by that point. In my mind, anything that makes the editing process sufficiently distinct for medicine articles would serve to emphasize the tighter standards we try to uphold. Wafflephile (talk) 17:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• Don't agree with adding any notice. Perhaps a little pointer to WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDMOS at the talkpage might make sense. II | (t - c) 08:00, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

  That's already done. The first sentence of the {{WPMED}} banner points to MEDMOS and MEDRS. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

There are lots of topics with special circumstances that would invite similar warnings. This as a default template wouldn't work. As said above, certain pages have concise versions of the same warning. In extreme cases they can be added, but not as a blanket addition. Shadowjams (talk) 08:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Giving MEDRS teeth, similar to BLP

• I appreciate that Anthonyhcole is trying to find a way to address a big problem that affects the accuracy of our medical content and makes editing more difficult for all of us than it need be, but I despair that we haven't found a way to get most folks (experts, advocates alike) to read MEDRS regardless of how often or where we link to it. POV pushers and advocates will continue to ignore it in droves, as they always have. I'm engaged in one article now where MEDRS was explained in detail to a new user two years ago, yet he came back after an absence and took up right where he left off, and non-medical editors are contributing to the problem of incorrect use of sources by supporting his reverts that include medical inaccuracies-- using primary sources to promote a POV. The way forward on this dilemma is for all of us to begin working to give MEDRS some teeth, similar to BLP. No amount of trying to get folks to read MEDRS is going to solve the problem; we have no support from admins and other editors when it comes to reinforcing MEDRS. See discussion here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• Sandy, are you suggesting we should have the right to summarily remove potentially misleading or harmful medical info from articles, as we do with potentially libelous or gratuitously harmful information from BLPs, and elevating MEDRS to policy status? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 00:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC) I just followed your link, Sandy, and have a better picture of where you're coming from. I'll read the TimidGuy case, and ASCII's and Short Brigade's links when I get back from work. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• You already have the right to summarily remove potentially misleading or harmful medical info from articles. This is a wiki and bold editing is encouraged. You may find yourself confronted by POV-pushers who have their own reasons for wanting that info in the article; but NPOV is worth the effort in defending. It's always worth remembering that both policy and guidelines are meant to be descriptive of what we do on the wiki, not prescriptive of the only way that we are allowed to edit. Nevertheless, the practices described by WP:MEDRS enjoy considerable consensus, and the onus is always on the dissenter to produce good reasons why they should not conform to that consensus. In that sense, "policy" or "guideline" makes little difference: breaches of MEDRS for no other reason than personal preference are disruptive, and there are sufficient editors who understand MEDRS to ensure that you don't have defend it on your own. I must admit to a degree of dismay at the seeming inability of ArbCom to grasp the value and necessity of MEDRS; but the answer to that is not to complain, but to take steps to ensure that ArbCom is educated in the value of guidelines that ensure the highest quality sourcing. Anyone for a petition for starters? --RexxS (talk) 01:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Strong support that we give MEDRS teeth. Not sure how to do this though. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Input needed at Talk:Sex_reassignment_surgery_(male-to-female)#Requested_move

The proposal is to change it to "surgery for trans women". (My own view is to use what the surgical RS's use and to change it when the predominant term across the RS's changes.) Any input would be welcome.— James Cantor (talk) 00:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

New article bot

I've only recently learned about User:AlexNewArtBot/MedicineSearchResult; I don't see it mentioned on the project page here, did I miss it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

It's towards the end of ===Other ideas===, under "Tag the talk pages of medicine-related articles". I don't think that anyone is systematically sorting through the page these days, although I take an occasional look. You might also want to add importScript("User:Fred Gandt/getUnpatrolledOfAlexNewArtBotResultsPages.js"); to your /common.js file; that will let you identify which of the new pages still need to be patrolled. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

More eyes on Gc-MAF and A-N-acetylgalactosaminidase please

New user Gcmafexpert has been making additions to the above articles which are copyvios and do not meet MEDRS requirements, as well as what looks like continually adding spam links to laboratories that do testing in this area. More eyes would be appreciated. Yobol (talk) 16:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Someone needs to look out for Physical therapy education

Over the last few months, sections of that article have been blanked or replaced with poorly-written, less-informative ones, without anyone noticing. So far, I've gone and reinstated two good sections that had been mangled. Could some of you please watchlist this article so the same thing doesn't happen in the future? Thanks! — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 18:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Reactive attachment disorder

On my computer, this featured article only displays the first 40 references. I don't know why. Biosthmors (talk) 17:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

A bot had been used to insert extra parameters in two references, but the bot had mangled the refs by opening an HTML comment and not closing it. I've removed the "blockage" by deleting the HTML comments, and I think I've got the references right now, but the subject is not my area of expertise, so I'd be grateful if someone who knows about RAD could check that the text:

• "In addition to these changes, the DSM-V proposed revision changes also stipulate that the child cannot meet the criteria for an Autistic Spectrum Disorder, which is not specified in the DSM-IV-TR"

is adequately supported by the reference:

• "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders: Text Revision. American Psychiatric Association. 2000. pp. 943".

Cheers, --RexxS (talk) 20:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Ugh, just looked, and see that a direct quote of DSM criteria (along with some other tangential stuff) was added there. Folks should be aware that the APA (publisher of DSM) guards their copyright most jealously, does not allow direct quoting or close paraphrasing, stays on top of that on the internet, and has in the past written to WMF (OTRS) to get all issues of quoted diagnostic criteria removed. We had to go through every blooming instance of DSM criteria in articles. I'm concerned about other things happening at that article, but I only removed that part. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you remember where the on-wiki discussion was? I'd be interested to read how fair use exemption was dealt with. Nathan ^T 21:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Give me about an hour and I should be able to find it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, my first clue was at Talk:Tic_disorder (you can see the wording there), which left me astounded since I was previously aware of the issue of how jealously the APA guarded copyright and had very carefully crafted the text in my own words. The APA complained about a number of articles, so there was a whole big investigation. It took them a long time to clear me ... I was persistent :) The rest is here. I was told long before I came to Wikipedia that the APA would also take on Fair Use claims. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks. It looks like fair use wasn't even raised, I wonder why. It's been treated like a DMCA takedown, maybe I'll ask MRG if that was because of the way it was written (i.e. without properly attributed direct quotes in those few instances where the text wasn't fully paraphrased), or if the WMF responds that way to all complaints of copyright ownership of text. Thanks again, Nathan ^T 22:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Erection article

There is a discussion at Talk:Erection#Reverts of recent edits about whether or not a section about nocturnal penile tumescence should be titled by its medical name or one of its various slang names ("morning wood"). Two editors (I'm one of them) are for the medical name, while one editor is for the slang name. This same editor also tried to get the Nocturnal penile tumescence article titled by this particular slang name. And the slang name also currently exists in the Puberty article. Some help from the Med project on this matter would of course be appreciated. 49.212.13.55 (talk) 00:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

An RfC has been posted by me at Talk:Erection#Reverts of recent edits; I had not previously been aware of this earlier post here. Your participation will be welcomed. Milkunderwood (talk) 01:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I was a participant in the discussion concerning the unsuccessful move request from Nocturnal penile tumescence to Morning wood, which involved the same editor and arguments. I have not previously been aware of the problem at Puberty. Milkunderwood (talk) 01:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Carcinosis

I converted a ported dictionary definition to an outline article. Because the term is used in a variety of contexts, I'm thinking that it might be better of to redirect to Metastasis, with or without merging my changes. What I did was superficial (e.g. I never discussed lymphomatosis). There is a paucity of clinical definitions, and I suspect that WP:NOTDICT should doom my efforts.Novangelis (talk) 20:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Melatonin

At, of all place, Talk:Maple syrup I saw someone saying how untrustworthy this article is and how it's been taken over by vendors of OTC drugs. Could someone who has a clue please take a look? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 15:02, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

It truly is in a sad state. Lots of outdated sources to back claims that it's harmless, will cure cancer, you name it. Thanks for highlighting it.LeadSongDog come howl! 20:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I've just taken out the dosage section (as you did earlier). I started to look though the text and found myself adding two {{cn}} and two {{Unreliable medical source}} in the first section I looked at. I've checked PubMed and Google Scholar and there seems no shortage of reviews in several different areas concerning melatonin, so there's no reason that I can see to pack the article with primary sources. Looking at the talk page, I'm expecting some resistance to any insistence that MEDRS is followed, so any extra eyes would be welcome. --RexxS (talk) 00:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Procedures to detect demonstrable untruths

Please see User talk:Jimbo Wales#Procedures to detect demonstrable untruths (permanent link here), which discusses matters pertaining to the use of the word glucojasinogen in the article "Diabetic neuropathy".
—Wavelength (talk) 20:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

RFC on reversion of merge of hand muscles

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Extrinsic_extensor_muscles_of_the_hand#RFC_on_reversion_of_merge. Should the merge of articles on individual muscles to Extrinsic_extensor_muscles_of_the_hand be reverted? Taylornate (talk) 04:03, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Phytosterols

I have added the most recent non-evidence and wondering what to do with the rest of the article which does pretend some kind of beneficial effect by summarizing tons of valid but totally irrelevant health claims? Richiez (talk) 11:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I had a go at collecting the health claims in one section and then summarizing some of the overly detailed stuff, but I'm not sure that it helped very much. There's a fair bit of work that needs to be done. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Cerebroretinal microangiopathy with calcifications and cysts

Article put up in one edit by a brand new editor; could someone have a look, and also anyone who knows this area might be the best person to welcome the folk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The article looks good. The editor (Tekivela) is clearly not a newbie. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:30, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I have left a welcome message. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:35, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment required for medical merge

Please comment on a proposed merge at Talk:Warfarin necrosis. Thank you, D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Merge completed. Biosthmors (talk) 16:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Oral contraception articles - priority and organization

I'm curious if there's a priority system, and or talk-page box, relevant for this project. I ask because I'm dismayed at the state of the Oral contraceptive formulations article, which is essentially the redirect target for most forms of birth control, even to the exclusion of some actual pharmaceutical names that probably should redirect to those particular formulations, especially given how widespread they are used.

I'm concerned there maybe a lot of fragmented contraception articles that should be looked at as a whole. At the least they should be all unified under a single template, and the individual drugs should be covered respectively. Then of course the broader concept can be covered under the respective articles. I'm sorry if I've missed the articles that do that, but I haven't found them and I'm alarmed at the redirects to the oral contraceptive formations article, since those individual drugs should probably have their own articles. I have no issue with the redirects if the information's covered elsewhere, but the target article seems to be barely more than a stub now.

If someone could direct me to where there is a better organization of these articles I'd appreciate it, but more critically, these key articles should point to an article that offers some real content. And if that article doesn't exist, then it ought to be a priority. Shadowjams (talk) 08:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Which widely used drugs do not yet have articles? Biosthmors (talk) 16:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

As I explained, every brand name appears to be a redirect. Usually they're consistent, however Plan B (drug) redirects to Levonorgestrel specifically, and Norgeston redirects to Norgestrel; compare that to Ortho Tri-Cyclen which redirects to Oral contraceptive formulations. So if the current scheme is to redirect all brand names to oral contraceptive formulations, and then to the compound's article, at the least there are some inconsistencies here. To further complicate things, Extended cycle combined hormonal contraceptive is a fork of oral contraceptive formulations. So Seasonique redirects there.

There are also additional hodgepodges of articles, like Progestogen-only pill (which is well developed actually), Combined oral contraceptive pill, and then Oral contraceptive pill, which is a disambiguation-like page that doesn't link to oral contraceptive formulations strangely.

You're probably right that there aren't any glaring omissions in actual drugs covered. I suppose redirecting brand names is correct unless the brand name has some other significance e.g. Tylenol. But putting that part aside, there are a lot of articles, some with a lot of detail, others with not much, that aren't linked together very consistently. And the examples I gave are just the ones I found after a quick look. Someone with some expertise in the field would probably have a better idea of the scope. That's why I ask here. So, is this the current scheme? Brand name to > formulation > specific component drug? And should we consider using Oral contraceptive as a primary page (and not the disambig-like page it is now) and then do {{main|}} headed summary sections that then link to Oral contraceptive formulations, Combined oral contraceptives, and progestogen-only pill (and any I'm missing)? As it is now, the combined oral contraceptive article is the most developed so moving it significantly is probably not an option. Shadowjams (talk) 17:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I miss Lyrl (talk · contribs). She'd have good ideas about how to handle this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Deep vein thrombosis

I have been working on this article for a while, and I have listed it for a peer review. I started the Classification section, and I have rewritten the Causes, Prevention, and Pathophysiology sections. Those sections are the main ones I'm asking for feedback on. I've edited some in other sections, but I have not yet done anything with Signs and symptoms or Diagnosis. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 16:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review for Gabriel Cousens. Input requested.

There's an interesting discussion going on at Deletion Review over whether an article about a prominent raw foods advocate and spiritual teacher should be created or continue being deleted. Of note, there is a controversial section in the article which has raised questions about reliable sources. The article relays medical claims made by the practitioner. The subject also requested deletion of the prior article in an Afd. I would appreciate any thoughtful comments or criticism, especially in the area of your speciality, which is the quality and sufficiency of the reliable sources used (or not used) in this article, and the handling of medical claims. Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 17:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)