Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/March 2011: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
Next edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
set up March
 
promote 7
Line 1: Line 1:
==March 2011==
==March 2011==
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Luke P. Blackburn/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Myotis alcathoe/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/L. Ron Hubbard/archive2}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Herbie Hewett/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2010 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup Final/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Parkinson's disease/archive2}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/U2 3D/archive2}}

Revision as of 21:28, 5 March 2011

March 2011

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain 21:28, 5 March 2011 [1].

Luke P. Blackburn

Nominator(s): Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 14:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nineteenth century governor, physician, philanthropist, reformer... and accused bioterrorist! Hope that generates some interest. It's also true. I think this is a comprehensive account of the life of a very interesting individual who was accused of engaging in germ warfare during the American Civil War using yellow fever, the very disease he spent most of his life helping to combat. I look forward to responding to comments. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 14:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments:

  • Perrin et al: this is cited to the original 1888 book, but in fact the online source is a typewritten extract provided by rootsweb.ancestry.com. How do we know that this is reliable and that the transcription is accurate?
    • I've tried without success to locate this blurb elsewhere. Much of what is cited to it is probably in the Baird biography, but I haven't checked every instance.
  • In the bibliography, publisher locations are missing in one or two cases. For consistency, either show all locations or none.
    • Fixed.
  • Likewise, consistency necessary betw. retrieved/Retrieved. But retrieval dates are not required for Google book links.

Otherwise sources and citations look OK Brianboulton (talk) 00:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs or dead external links. --PresN 00:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. I've started reading through the body of the article looking for prose issues. I'm enjoying it greatly so far! My comments are located on the article's talk page; please respond to individual concerns there. Once I've run through the entire article, I'll check out the lead to make sure it is well balanced. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support happily! Thanks for the time that you've put into this. The interwebs are a better place because of it. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from talk: Here are some comments on the article's prose:

  • "Henry Clay was also a distant cousin, and occasionally visited the Blackburn home." Who is Henry Clay? This sentence would benefit from a few words of explanation about Henry Clay.
    • I tend to forget that non-U.S. folks read these, too, and they aren't familiar with "The Great Compromiser". Fixed.
  • "Luke Blackburn quickly became an active member of the community, helping found a temperance society, joining an elite militia group, and becoming the administrator of a local hospital." I find it somewhat confusing that this section's first mention of any military experience finds Blackburn in an "elite militia group". How can it be possible that he could be an elite combatant without any previous combat experience? Unless, of course, he did have previous combat experience, in which case such experience should be mentioned in the article.
    • No, I've found no mention of previous military experience, although you are right that this seems strange. The source does not elaborate, so I'm not sure how this happened. If it is too jarring, I can just remove that, since it isn't all that important to his overall life.
  • "Blackburn was stricken with grief over the death of his wife, and friends encouraged him to tour Europe as he had often spoken of doing" The connection between these two clauses is not clear. I suggest adding in a phrase like "as a means of easing his grief" or some such.
    • Good point. Done.
  • "Too old to enlist in the Confederate Army, he acted as an envoy" What is an envoy? I suggest adding a wikilink or perhaps a link to the Wiktionary entry.
    • OK. I thought this was common enough language, but I've linked it now.
  • "but he failed to secure the arms" This phrase leaves the reader wanting more. Do you happen to know why he failed?
    • There may be some additional detail, but I'll have to check the source again.
    • Just double-checked the source. It says "Information about Blackburn's activities during the first two years of the war is sketchy. He served as an unsuccessful envoy for Governor Beriah Magoffin of Kentucky to obtain guns from Louisiana for the defense of the commonwealth,..." then goes on to talk about his service in Sterling Price's unit. There doesn't appear to be any elaboration.
      • Argh! Oh well, we can only summarize information that actually exists. My intuition tells me that "but he was unable to secure the arms" would be slightly less jarring, though I don't really have a good reason for thinking that. Feel free to either employ this wording or not at your discretion. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After securing sufficient medical accommodations for the wounded" What does "medical accommodations" mean? Does it refer to supplies or to a physical structure in which the wounded could be treated?
    • Clarified.
  • "When the offer was refused, Governor Pettus asked Blackburn to travel to Canada to collect provisions for blockade runners there." and "Blackburn was aboard a blockade running ship carrying ice from Halifax to Mobile, Alabama" seem to contradict each other. The first implies that Blackburn went to Halifax, stayed there, and helped gather supplies. The second implies that he travelled back and forth between Halifax and the Confederacy transporting supplies. Which is the case?
    • The sources don't say specifically, but based on my reading, I believe his primary job was staying in Halifax to secure supplies, and that this trip was a deviation from the norm. After the close call, I'm guessing he didn't go on many more such excursions!
  • "When word of the plot was leaked to Union officials, they reinforced Boston, Massachusetts" Reinforced how? Structural or manpower? Either one would make sense here.
    • Clarified.
  • "Independent of Hyams' testimony, officials in Bermuda had received information that Blackburn had collected a second cache of "contaminated" garments and linens and contracted with Edward Swan, a hotel owner in St. George's, to store them until mid-1865 and then ship them to New York City, presumably an attempt to start an outbreak there." This is an extremely long sentence! I suggest chopping it in half, probably after "garments and linens".
    • Done.
  • "The Courier-Journal carried an announcement of Blackburn's candidacy for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination on February 11, 1878" In which state was this? Blackburn was zipping all over the place at the time, so it's not entirely clear where he was running.
    • Good point. Clarified.
  • "Whatever the reason, even his friends did not believe his announcement was wise." Why not? Because of his inexperience, or because of the allegations of biological warfare?
    • Inexperience. Clarified.
  • "Blackburn's first concern as governor was to balance the state's budget." seems to contradict with "Blackburn's primary focus was on reforms to the state's penal system." If the two concerns were addressed sequentially rather than concurrently, I suggest prepending the second sentence with "Once the state's budget had been adjusted," or some such.
  • "In 1879, 75 percent of the state's prisoners had scurvy due to a poor diet and 7 percent of the incarcerated individuals died." 7% died as a result of scurvy? If so, I suggest appending "as a result". If not, I don't see why the 7% statistic is relevant. People die all the time.
    • The 7% figure refers to the entire prison population. I think it's highly relevant, as did Lowell Harrison when he included it in A New History of Kentucky. Yes, people die all the time, but nearly 1 in 10 inmates in the prison dying in a single year seems a bit abnormal to say the least. That's 67 people dead in one year. I think this merits inclusion to show how poor the conditions were.
      • A valid point. I do think the current phrasing is a tad bit misleading, as it could be misconstrued as saying that 7% of the prisoners died of scurvy. Perhaps we could add "of preventable diseases" to the end? I wouldn't know if such a statement were supported by the source, but if so, I think it adds a nice bit of clarity. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He later successfully lobbied Congress to construct a series of hospitals for boatmen along the Mississippi." I suggest changing "hospitals for boatmen" to "similar hospitals" to cut down on the number of repeated words between this sentence and the previous one.
    • Done.
  • "Although he was acquitted by a Toronto court, public sentiment was decidedly against him." Where/when does this statement apply? Surely not everywhere and everywhen, for the people of Kentucky didn't seem to think it was relevant when they elected Blackburn. Consider appending the sentence with "throughout much of the (Northern) United States" or "for the remainder of the war".
    • Done.
  • "his liberal pardon record and expenditure of scarce taxpayer money to improve the lot of criminals was unpopular at the time," I don't think that the meaning of "to improve the lot of criminals" will be entirely clear to all readers, particularly those who were born after 1900. While there may be ways to rewrite this particular phrase, I think the simplest solution would be to drop it altogether, especially since this is already a very long sentence.
    • Reworded. I think this phrase is important.

Those are the only concerns I have with the article. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments so far. Glad you're enjoying the article. Blackburn's is a pretty unique story. I'm going to move these comments to the FAC page so other reviewers can see them, per standard practice. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 14:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Ruhrfisch comments This is an intrersting read and looks quite good. I am leaning towards support, but I have a few comments I'd like to see addressed first.

  • The lead seems to deviate from WP:LEAD in some ways.
    • WP:LEAD says The article should begin with a declarative sentence telling the nonspecialist reader what (or who) is the subject. - since much of the article is about his time as governor, it seems to me this should be mentioned in the first sentence. Since the second sentence mentions his term as governor and he served a term in the Kentucky House, perhaps he could be identified as a politician in the first sentence? Or perhaps the first and second sentences could be combined?
      • Good point. Fixed.
    • Since the article title is Luke P. Blackburn, shouldn't this name be given in the lead too (not just Luke Pryor Blackburn)? So something like "Luke Pryor Blackburn (commonly known as Luke P. Blackburn, June 16, 1816 – September 14, 1887) was a physician and philanthropist..."? Again WP:LEAD says in part If the subject of the page has a common abbreviation or more than one name, the abbreviation (in parentheses) and each additional name should be in boldface on its first appearance.
      • I'm inclined to just move the article to "Luke Pryor Blackburn". I can't find any preference for the initial over the name or vice-versa in any of the sources.
    • The lead is a summary of the rest of the article, and as such, nothing important should be just in the lead. However, the material in Until the election of Ernie Fletcher in 2003, Blackburn was the only physician to serve as governor of Kentucky.[1] is only in the lead.
      • I've repeated the sentence under Governor of Kentucky. That paragraph was a little short anyway.
  • Still in the lead, Blackburn was sympathetic to the Confederate cause during the Civil War. seems to really understate his work on behalf of the Confederacy - this is a man who went to Canada and Bermuda to help Confederate blockade runners and was accused of trying to infect the North with yellow fever.
    • I was really trying to convey that, during the lead-up to and at the outbreak of the Civil War, he was sympathetic to the Confederate (states' rights?) cause, prompting him to serve the Confederacy during the war. I don't think I can succinctly and eloquently convey that, though, so I've changed the sentence around a little to better fit with your understanding of it. See what you think.
  • Early life and family section - since there are articles on all the Kentucky lieutenant governors have articles, shouldn't his uncle be named and linked (if an article exists) in His maternal grandfather was a delegate to the 1799 Kentucky Constitutional Convention and his uncle was a member of the state legislature and acted as lieutenant governor in the administration of Governor James Turner Morehead.[3]?
    • There is no article for the uncle, William Blackburn. Lieutenant Governor James Turner Morehead ascended to the governorship upon the death of Governor John Breathitt. At the time, there was no provision for electing a new lieutenant governor in the case of succession; the President Pro Tem of the Senate acted as lieutenant governor in such a case. William Blackburn was apparently President Pro Tem for at least part of Morehead's term. (I can't find any information about him at present). Because of this, he was acting lieutenant governor, but was not elected to that office.
      • I still think his uncle should be named to provide more information and avoid confusion. No need for a red link. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done, and I've reworded the sentence to better highlight that he was acting lieutenant governor, rather than being elected to that office.
  • Awkward sentenceJust prior to Cary's birth, Blackburn invested heavily in a failed business venture in the hemp rope and bagging industry and suffered a significant financial loss.[7] I assume he did not invest in a venture which had already failed?? I think this would be clearer as something like Just prior to Cary's birth, Blackburn invested heavily in the hemp rope and bagging industry and suffered a significant financial loss when the business venture failed.[7]
    • Much clearer. Thanks.
  • Since other brothers are named later in the article, shouldn't his brother's name be given here too? He did not seek re-election, and in 1844, he and his younger brother opened a medical practice in Frankfort, Kentucky.[7]
    • The source only identifies him as "a younger brother".
  • "the federal Congress" sounds odd - why not just "congress" or "the US Congress" in He also successfully lobbied the federal Congress to establish a hospital in Natchez; upon its completion in 1852, he was appointed surgeon there.[5]
    • I'm sure I had a reason when I wrote that, but it eludes me now. Changed.
  • Acting on a commission from the Mississippi Legislature, Blackburn lobbied both houses of the Louisiana State Legislature to establish a quarantine at New Orleans to protect cities along the Mississippi River; as a result of this entreaty, the Louisiana legislature authorized him to organize such a quarantine system.[5] - this could be tightened, and does the link to Bicameralism (at both houses) really add anything to the reader's undertanding when the Louisiana legislature is linked a few words later? Tightened to something like this (things that could be cut further if not essential are in [brackets] like this): The Mississippi Legislature commissioned Blackburn to lobby [both houses of] the Louisiana [State] Legislature to establish a quarantine at New Orleans to protect cities along the Mississippi River; Louisiana authorized him to organize such a [quarantine] system.[5]
    • Done.
  • More tightening (the previous sentence was about his wife's death) Blackburn was stricken with grief over the death of his wife, and friends encouraged him to tour Europe, as he had often spoken of doing, to ease his grief. Would "ease his sorrow" work here instead- avoids two uses of "grief" in one sentence.
    • Good suggestions. Done.
  • "hold an audience with" sounds odd (and isn't the person in power the one who usually holds the audience anyway?) Would it be better as Blackburn traveled to Richmond, Virginia to hold an audience [meet] with Confederate Secretary of War James Seddon wherein he [and] offered to serve as General Inspector of Hospitals and Camps ...
    • That works.
  • In Civil War, this reads oddly as Halifax and Toronto are hundreds of miles apart: Blackburn left Mississippi for Halifax, Nova Scotia in August 1863, and he and his wife found lodging in a boardinghouse in Toronto.[14]
    • Not being too familiar with Canadian geography, this didn't strike me as odd when I wrote it, but after you pointed it out, I've reviewed the source and reworded to give a more accurate description of his travels.
  • Yellow fever plot - should the article let the reader know this was just as the Civil War was ending (the surrender at Appomattox Court House was a few days before the double agent's report)?
    • Done.
  • Is "over" needed in He was held over for trial on $8,000 bond.[26]? Could it just be He was held for trial on $8,000 bond.[26]
    • Done.
  • Per Wikipedia:CREDENTIAL, I think Dr. should be omitted in Writing in the journal America's Civil War, Dr. J. D. Haines notes that the Confederate agents who testified against Blackburn were of dubious reputation.[24] J. D. Haines could be described as "professor of History at XYZ University" (or whatever) if that is known.
    • According to this, he is (or was in 2006) a Navy medical doctor. Would you actually spell all that out as opposed to just calling him doctor?
      • 1) I still think WP:Credential says not to do this. 2) Doctor is ambiguous and can also mean someone with a Ph.D. or other doctorate. 3) Historian Edward Steers is a doctor (presumably a Ph.D.) (see here) but is not identified as "Dr. Edward Steers", so the use of titles is inconsistent in the article 4) Describing him as a Navy physician works for me - it avoids the ambiguity of "Dr." and the fact that he wrote an article titled "Did a Confederate doctor engage in a primitive form of biological warfare? The Northern press thought so". makes more sense when he is identified as a physician. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, done.
  • Post-war humanitarian work - this could be tightened from Not waiting for Johnson's response—a response that never came—Blackburn returned to the U.S., arriving in Louisville ... to something like Not waiting for Johnson's response—which never came—Blackburn returned to the U.S., arriving in Louisville ...
    • Works for me.
  • Should "Louisville's" be added at the start of The Courier-Journal carried an announcement of Blackburn's candidacy...?
    • Done.
  • Would it help to end this sentence with a colon and combine it with the next? Might also help to make it clearer these were his second wife's brothers. Two of his wife's brothers also held political office.[33]
    • Good idea. Done.
  • Add something like "his proposal for" or "the idea of" to clarify this To a large degree, his pleas fell upon deaf ears, with the exception of [his proposal for] the state board of health, which was created in March 1878.
    • Done.
  • Close paraphrase concerns: page 260 of A New History of Kentucky has the first quote, the second is from the article:
An 1875 study had found that 20 percent of the inmates had pneumonia; the year Blackburn took office another report revealed that three of every four prisoners had scurvy, owing to poor diet. More than 7 percent of the nearly one thousand prisoners had died during the year.
An 1875 study showed that 20 percent of the state's inmates were suffering from pneumonia.[56] In 1879, 75 percent of the state's prisoners had scurvy due to a poor diet and 7 percent of the incarcerated individuals died.[56]
    • How would you rephrase this? The statistics are what they are, and rephrasing them too much could change their meaning.
      • How about something like this (inlcudes the current previous sentence in a modified version): Conditions in the penitentiary were poor and resulted in many illnesses. One fifth of the state's prisoners suffered from pneumonia in 1875. When Blackburn became governor in 1879, the mortality rate of the almost one thousand inmates in the state penitentiary was over 7 percent. Scurvy caused by poor nutrition afflicted 75 percent of prisoners.[62] You could also just quote the two sentences and be done with it, ;-) Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've adopted your wording above.
  • I would add the year here (instead of today): This was done, and the rechartered institution, located at Lexington, became known commonly as the State College; today, it is the University of Kentucky.[62] with the date it would be something like This was done, and the rechartered institution, located at Lexington, became known commonly as the State College; in 1916 it was named the University of Kentucky.[62]
    • Done.
  • Later life and death - I would move the sentence that he had stated he would not seek further political office at the start of his term earlier in this section. As it is, I assumed he was speaking about his own (re)nomination at the 1883 Democratic nominating convention.
    • Hadn't thought of that. Besides his campaign promise, the Kentucky Constitution at that time prevented him from serving a second consecutive term, but I couldn't neatly work that in. I've moved the info closer to the top now.
  • Some WP:OVERLINKing - do consul, telegraph, Negro, Fête, pardon, and President of the United States right before Abraham Lincold really need links? Also Kentucky General Assembly is linked three times in the body of the article.
    • I do typically err on the side of overlinking. Fixed these examples.
  • Not an actionable request, but I do not think the locator map for Hickman adds much to the article. What if the Good Samaritan image from his tomb were moved to the "Post-war humanitarian work" section instead, and the full image of his tomb could be used in the "Later life and death" section instead?
    • I guess it doesn't add all that much, but I think I'd rather just delete it than show the tombstone twice (even if one is an extreme closeup.)

Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Always nice to have your comments, Ruhrfish. Hope to gain your support as well. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 17:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have switched to support and struck where I thought the issue had been addressed. There are a few quibbles left, but trust they will be resolved too. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have uploaded a photo on Commons which I think would work well in the article and found an image of one of Blackburn's pardons which might work here. Details are on Acdixon's talk page. Thanks for an interesting and enjoyable read, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All issues resolved (I hope the Mississippi Boatman image is used). Nicely done, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - concerns adequately addressed. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC) Comments[reply]

  • "By 1863, he was supplying Confederate blockade runners in Canada." - what was he supplying them with?
    • I'm not really sure; the sources don't say. Would it be better to say he was "aiding" Confederate blockade runners? This would include his combating yellow fever in Bermuda and his (apparently sole) attempt at actually doing some blockade running.
      • Yeah, "aiding" would probably work better
        • Done.
  • "Any plot of this nature was destined to fail, however. In 1900, Walter Reed discovered that yellow fever is spread by mosquitoes, not by contact." - not mentioned in article text, not sourced
    • I'll work on a source and add it to the end of the last paragraph under "Yellow fever plot" as well.
  • WP:OVERLINK
    • I've addressed some of this in Ruhrfish's comments above. Any more glaring examples that you see?
      • Europe for sure, probably some of the countries
        • Fixed these.
  • "Blackburn continued his ministrations until mid-July when he briefly returned to Halifax.[17][18] The epidemic on the island continued, and Blackburn returned there in September to continue his ministrations" - repetitive
    • Ick. Quite so. Fixed.
  • "a competing theory proposed by Thomas S. Bell" - what was that theory?
    • That cholera was a miasmatic disease. I didn't list this earlier because I wasn't sure that would make sense, but since I notice at second glance that we have an article on the Miasma theory of disease, I think it's safe to state this and provide a wiki-link.
  • Why "twenty percent" but "8 percent"? Be consistent
    • I always forget the rules on numerals versus spelling out numbers.
  • Use of "in" in References is inconsistent
    • How so? I use "in" when the same author wrote more than one of the sources in the bibliography; otherwise, I just use the author's last name.
      • Ah, okay. I'm used to seeing it used for works within larger works.
  • Be consistent in whether editors are first name or last name first
    • Darn copy-paste inconsistency! :)
  • Include second and third authors in shortened citations
    • Done.
  • University Press of Kentucky or The University Press of Kentucky?
    • I suppose the official name is "The" University Press of Kentucky. Changed.
  • Page number(s) for Boltz and Haines?
    • Although both articles originally appeared in print, I got them from electronic databases, and those electronic versions are not paginated.
      • Would it be worth including subscription links to those databases?
        • I'm not sure what convention dictates, but I've done so here.

Nikkimaria (talk) 14:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I hope to eventually secure your support. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 17:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 14:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support per standard disclaimer. I made all the following edits; feel free to revert. All of these edits are per WP:Checklist. - Dank (push to talk)

  • "Natchez, Mississippi", "June 16, 1816", and a lot more needed second commas. I filled them in this time; I may oppose over this many missed commas next time. I know some people like to omit them, but I don't know of an American style guide that supports that. See for instance Chicago 6.17 ("Commas in pairs"), 6.45 and 10.30; The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage, at "comma" (the last two paragraphs); and AP Stylebook, at "months" and in the punctuation section.
  • "Hyams said he was instructed to sell the trunks' contents to used clothing merchants. Blackburn ... hoped ...": "Hyams said he was instructed to sell the trunks' contents to used clothing merchants, and that Blackburn ... hoped ...".
  • "to store them until mid-1865 and then ship them to New York City, presumably an attempt to start an outbreak there.": "... presumably in an attempt to start an outbreak there.". "Attempt" was dangling as an appositive because it didn't refer to any single word or phrase.
  • - Dank (push to talk) 03:02, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain 21:28, 5 March 2011 [2].

Myotis alcathoe

Nominator(s): Ucucha 18:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You'd think that after centuries of systematic research, we would at least know all the mammal species occurring in Europe. Wrong; new species are discovered every few years. Even then, you'd probably think that whatever new species are found are marginal and occur in small areas. Wrong again. This article is about a bat species first named in 2001 that is now known to occur pretty much all over Europe (and quite possibly, also outside Europe). Our knowledge of the species is still limited, but we are beginning to acquire a good understanding of its ecology and distribution.

This article comprehensively reflects that knowledge; thanks to the help of Thgoiter and several others, I've been able to read almost all of the by now voluminous literature on the species. The article was improved by a review by Sasata and a GA review by Ceranthor, and I'm looking forward to your reviews here at FAC. Ucucha 18:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs or dead external links. --PresN 20:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

  • Earwig`s tool found no copyvio, a few spotchecks found no close paraphrasing (although I can`t read Swedish or Spanish or Czech or German or Romanian or Slovenian or Ukrainian)
  • Niermann and Brinkmann or Brinkmann and Niermann¿ Funkel or Funkelmann¿ Dykyy or Dyvyy¿
    • Fixed.
  • Is Sauerbier et al 2006 or 2007¿ Check dates between References and Literature, as a few of them seem to have been mistranscribed
    • Fixed.
  • Ministry of Environment and Spatial Planning, Republic of Serbia, 2010 vs Ministry of Environment and Spatial Planning of the Republic of Serbia. 2009 - which is correct¿
    • Fixed.
  • What does EUT stand for¿
  • Bibliographic information for Gazaryan is a bit confusing - what kind of publication is this¿
  • The Hutson entry seems to be using a different format than the others. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is an image copyright check by Stifle.
  • Both images are freely-licensed. Stifle (talk) 12:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Support - reading through - notes below all else in order:
..but it was not until the advent of genetic methods.. "methods" scans oddly, invites the reader to think "methods of what?" - why not say "testing" or "investigations"
Changing to "studies". Thanks for your review! Ucucha 14:22, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Aah, studies! That word eluded me and is a better choice than the ones that sprang to mind first. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:38, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It;s late here. Will continue reading tomorr now. Goodnight :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Myotis alcathoe is the smallest European Myotis - I sometimes wonder about using genus names as nouns (i.e. should it remain italicised if used like this as a descriptive noun rather than indicating the genus) - I'd have thought a safer wording is "Myotis alcathoe is the smallest European member of the genus Myotis"
..the diet of Myotis alcathoe mostly consists of Nematocera flies, - similar issue to the above. maybe either an addjective "Nematoceran" or "the diet of Myotis alcathoe mostly consists of flies of the suborder Nematocera,":::Both of these tweaked. Ucucha 00:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Literature cited section needs work: Journal names must be italics. If there are DOIs for any of the papers they should be given using {{DOI}} mini template (even if you have a full text link, the DOI is still needed). Also look for any PMID, PMC or JSTOR records (latter maybe only needed if no other link available). I expect that the recent papers should have at least one of these indexes available [non-use of {{cite journal}} means citation bot and related tools can't be used to do this for you.] Rjwilmsi 23:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no requirement for any of these things. Ucucha 23:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's a disappointing attitude. I think that the guidance at WP:Citing sources supports all of my suggestions (I was not requesting use of citation templates, merely mentioning a possible quick win). I would have to oppose if none of the suggestions are actioned. Rjwilmsi 23:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's your choice. Lots of academic sources do not italicize journal titles and do not routinely include DOIs and PMIDs; Wikipedia should do the same. Ucucha 23:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Adding DOIs certainly adds some value to Wikipedia. If you want to check sources (we should all be critical!) a DOI link is much appreciated. Jack (talk) 12:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • To the best of my knowledge, all sources that are available online have the title linked to the online version, either through the DOI or through a direct link (i.e., to the page the DOI redirects to). Ucucha 12:53, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Sorry, I wasn't commenting on this articles references, they all look fine. I meant in general, I just got the idea from your comment that you thought Wikipedia shouldn't include them at all! Cheers, Jack (talk) 13:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Rjwilmsi, WP:CITE does not require the elements you propose - the only requirement relevant to this exchange is that citation style be consistent, which in this case it is as far as I see. You're welcome to oppose if your suggestions are not implemented, but I would suggest that opposing on those grounds alone will likely not carry a lot of weight. YMMV. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Also, I've so far written 30 featured articles with this exact citation style. If consensus is that that style is to be changed, so be it, but I doubt that is the case. Ucucha 23:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • I scratch my comment re italics, if I mentioned it at all it should only have been as a query. I still think that DOI links are important for verification and accessibility: DOIs are designed as permanent links, PDF copies (while great as free access to full text) don't necessarily have the same longevity (also consider DOI display in offline Wikipedia versions). I don't really think that use of DOIs is a style issue, rather a content one. Anyway, it looks like the article is missing the following three links: doi:10.3161/1508110042176590, ISBN 3440096939 and a PDF. Rjwilmsi 21:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: As always, a well-developed, detailed article. A few comments:

  • Any information about how the species manages to be sympatric with other Myotis? Any observations on niche differentiation?
    • Nothing specifically discusses niche differentiation. However, its habitat requirements (described in detail in the article) do appear to be different from (and more restricted than) those of M. mystacinus and M. brandtii. Ucucha 23:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Has anyone constructed a phylogenetic tree for the genus?
  • Under "France": "It is caught at caves in late summer and autumn." Why is it caught? For regular scientific studies? Or was this supposed to be past tense?
  • "Quercus robur oaks" – The other items in this short list read "limes (Tilia cordata), birches (Betula pendula)". Why not say "oaks (Quercus robur)"?

That's all I found the first time through. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! Ucucha 23:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I'll try to read it again tomorrow before I add my support. I'm too tired tonight to say I gave it a thorough review. – VisionHolder « talk » 00:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support: On the second read, it looks good. Great job! – VisionHolder « talk » 15:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support—I gave the article a pretty thorough pre-FAC review, and, having read through it again, can't find anything additional to complain about. Did you know that Ucucha has "a virtual collection of the interiors of bat penises"? I thought my collection of fungi on animal dung was odd...  :) Sasata (talk) 16:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain 21:28, 5 March 2011 [4].

L. Ron Hubbard

Nominator(s): MartinPoulter (talk) 17:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

March 13th 2011 will be the centenary of the birth of this highly polarizing figure. The article has long had issues with sourcing and poor organization, unsurprisingly given the controversial subject matter. A recent total rewrite (by another editor) has taken it to a higher level. It seems to me to exemplify Wikipedia's very best work, and I look forward to the perspectives of other editors. I can not always access Wikipedia from my day job, but expect to respond to queries within 24 hours. MartinPoulter (talk) 17:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs or dead external links. 1 external redirect which may lead to link rot, see it with the tool in the upper right of this page. --PresN 20:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. Link now goes to the redirected page. MartinPoulter (talk) 18:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly Inside Scientology: The Story of America's Most Secretive Religion? Since this book, whose prodded article is also by the newcomer, is not due for publication until July, checking for copyvio etc would be difficult. Johnbod (talk) 15:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let me just sort out a potential misconception: Janet Reitman has authored an article with that title, that has been out for a few years now, and published as a book chapter. She has subsequently expanded it into a book with that same title- currently unpublished as you point out. That book is not used as a source in this article. The "Reitman" citations in this article are to the earlier book chapter and so they are verifiable. MartinPoulter (talk) 23:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've been involved with occasional minor improvements, finding reliable sources etc. for this article going back probably a couple of years. The intention was to get around to a substantive rewrite. However, a newcomer has done a much better job without me, and invited other editors to take it to review. Questions to the editors involved are probably best taken to their own Talk pages. I hope this discussion can focus on the quality of the article. MartinPoulter (talk) 09:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize, but this is quite far outside the normal pattern, so it's natural to raise questions. Since this newcomer would not necessarily be aware of all of our guidelines and policies, my first concern would be that someone with copies of Miller and Atack check for close paraphrasing/copyvio. Looking at the refs, the article closely follows the structure of Miller, significantly raising the risk of unintentional plagiarism. --Andy Walsh (talk) 14:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No apology necessary: you make a fair point. I have paper copies of both books and have been using them in improving some related articles. I'm satisfied that this article is what it should be: original work that is based on cited sources. The full text of both books is online, so nobody has to take my word for it. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As a further comment on this, Miller's biography of Hubbard is organised chronologically, so any chronological account of Hubbard's life is going to approximate its structure. The article is definitely an original work, conveying the factual content but not the language of its sources. MartinPoulter (talk) 17:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Query interesting read:
  1. "The idea may not have been a new one; a few previously," Would that be a few years, months or weeks?
    Well spotted! "Years" now added.
  2. "The house became the permanent residence of Hubbard and his children" Would that be his family with Mary Sue or all his children?
    It means his children with Mary Sue. Rather than overload that sentence with clauses, I've deleted mention of the children. MartinPoulter (talk) 09:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ϢereSpielChequers 23:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for resolving those two issues.
  1. The section on his writing seems to revolve around the dispute as to how commercially successful he was, rather than how good a Science Fiction writer he was. I have to admit that though I grew up on Heinlein and Clarke I haven't read any of his Science Fiction, but some info on total sales, languages translated into and awards won would also be interesting.
    Good suggestion: I will see if there are sufficient sources for this, and report back.
  2. I was a little surprised to see that The Infobox describes him as a writer of pulp fiction rather than Science fiction, is that the consensus view on him?
    Looking back at Talk page discussion of this issue, I'm minded to agree with you, but there are arguments either way. It seems that a predominance of reliable sources, including academic sources, describe him as "science-fiction author", though "pulp fiction author" also appears in multiple RSs. Some editors have argued for "philosopher" or a similar label which only appears in Scientology publications, so that won't fly. "Pulp fiction author" conveys not only that he wrote fantasy fiction and other genres as well, but also identifies the era/format of sci-fi in which he is most notable. It could be seen as a compromise. Do you still think it is worth changing?
    I think the change is worth making, the article makes it quite clear what sort of SF he wrote.

ϢereSpielChequers 14:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

His works were all pulp fiction of which a fair number were Sci-fi thus it would be incorrect to simply describes as Sci-Fi. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:46, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article body has "a writer of pulp fiction, becoming best known for his science fiction and fantasy stories" which seems the fairest representation, and the infobox is consistent with that. I don't feel strongly either way but will implement WSC's suggestion if there's a consensus among reviewers. MartinPoulter (talk) 17:30, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After sitting on it a day or two, would We be ok with simply author? I still think that Pulp Fiction is most appropriate since it covers all his writing (except for his religious Texts) The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:18, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Author works for me. ϢereSpielChequers 00:31, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. It would also be good to see something in the legacy section along the lines of "he was survived by x children and y grandchildren", in 2???, z years after his death the religion he founded claimed q million adherents worldwide.
    This looks do-able. While the names and birth dates of his children are sourced, I'm not certain of finding sources for who survived him. I will check (over the weekend rather than today) and report back. MartinPoulter (talk) 13:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, we can only use what can be sourced, but I think a biography should have this sort of info if it can be found. ϢereSpielChequers 14:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ϢereSpielChequers 19:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's now a section on the overall success of his fiction in the legacy section (rather than in the section on the Golden Age, since the stats used are much more recent). I've also added a paragraph about his family since his death. I'll see what other editors say about the infobox. MartinPoulter (talk) 15:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, nicely done. ϢereSpielChequers 00:31, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comment: I have not yet checked out the sources, but I have a couple of points which I think need attention immediately:-

  • There needs to be a list of the main books used - all of those, in fact, which are the subject of short citations: Miller, Atack, Streeter, Rolph etc. At present, a reader wishing to check any short citation is forced to look through this very long list of citations to find the book in question
  • With 300+ citations, I suggest that two columns in the references section is not adequate and I would make this 3 or 4. This is less urgent than the previous point, but would improve the presentation and reduce the scroll-down time.

Brianboulton (talk) 19:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Brian. I will work on both of these straight away. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Both suggestions now implemented (thanks to ResidentAnthropologist for fixing the columns). MartinPoulter (talk) 17:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Russell Miller's biography is a book-length treatment of the article's subject by a reputable investigative journalist, sourced to literally hundreds of end-notes. Reviews have praised it again and again for meticulous research. Frenschkowski's review that you cite (and which is cited and linked in the article) calls it "The most important critical biography of Hubbard". Yes, Frenschkowski raises concerns about specific statements in the book: let's discuss those specifics. Miller doubted the existence of "Snake" Thompson and his connection with Freud. Frenschkowski says that Miller was wrong, and that Snake's reality is backed up by additional documents. The article takes Frenschkowksi's position.
Atack's book, which is sourced to a similarly high standard, comes to substantially similar conclusions to Miller. So does the recent New Yorker piece. Note this interview in which author says "We've had five fact-checkers involved in this story. Even the head of the fact-checking department weighed in. And one of the checkers was on the story almost full-time since August." If you look up in Nature_(journal) about Hubbard, the short biography you find (doi:10.1038/331125a0) is sourced to Miller and Corydon, strongly recommending the former over the latter. A TV documentary, "Secret Lives: L. Ron Hubbard", followed the structure of the book closely and Miller appeared on camera. In summary, the book is an ideal source for a professional-quality article; so much so that it would be dubious to have a WP biography of Hubbard that didn't use it as a major source.
In fairness to the Scientologists, we need to balance the critical books' perspective, hence the citation of Church of Scientology sites. An article that took on wholesale the idea that the Church's official biography is mythical would be open to charges of non-neutrality. In addition, that official story plays a central role in the Scientology belief system (as per the Rothstein & Christensen refs) and that story is perhaps the principal way in which Hubbard has an ongoing cultural impact. The article would be severely incomplete if it did not present that story, presenting it *as* the official Scientology version and as disputed. This is exactly what the article does.
In summary, let's move on from wholesale arguments about sources to discuss the sourcing of specific statements. I'm open to discussing areas where you think certain sources are over-used, and what you've done in the case of the "most-translated author" claim is a constructive example. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like you are utilizing sourcing as appropriate and working hard to us the best research available to you. Your lengthy explanation has put my mind at ease about the sourcing concerns. It seems that my concerns while valid in general Wikipedia editing are misplaced here. Your "Church's official biography is mythical as non-NPOV" is interesting argument. I am not anti-Sci, but do have honest concern about the social construction of myth in action thus was a tad concerned to see so many CoS Refs. I do not think that CoS ref are by default unreliable but must be used with care. You seem to be doing a very good job so far on a very thorny article. I am impressed and wish I could be putting more effort in it myself Right now. I am about to go through combing the article some more. I There is so much baggage with LRH and CoS articles on Wikipedia I am glad to see some one is braving it. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I greatly appreciate your understanding, RA, and your recent improvements to the article. As you've seen, I've re-factored a paragraph that was entirely dependent on CoS refs. If there are specific areas of the article which are over-reliant on a particular ref, I'm very open to further improvement. MartinPoulter (talk) 15:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"theta being" or thetan – an immortal, omniscient and potentially omnipotent entity that had forgotten its full capabilities and was trapped in a "meat body." I am assuming this is quote from the book. IS there any way we can rephrase it so it doesnt sound so bizzare and so we dont need the "scare quotes" The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 15:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've broken up this long sentence, added a couple of extra references and removed "meat body". That is the term used in Scientology for a person's physical body, but you've got a point that this is a lot for the reader to take on. MartinPoulter (talk) 23:08, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanx Thetan is nesscary Jargon "Meat body" is not. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A few weeks after becoming "Dr." Hubbard, he wrote to Helen O'Brien – who had taken over the day-to-day management of Scientology in the United States – proposing that Scientology should be transformed into a religion. This would enable it to claim tax exemptions and religious protections.[1] The idea may not have been a new one; a few years previously, he was reported to have said to a number of people[2] that "Writing for a penny a word is ridiculous. If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion."[3] (The Church of Scientology denies that Hubbard said this.[4])
  1. ^ Streeter, p. 215; Miller, p. 213
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference Atack-137 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Methvin, Eugene H. (May 1990). "Scientology: Anatomy of a Frightening Cult". Reader's Digest. pp. 1-6.
  4. ^ Did L. Ron Hubbard state that the way to make money was to start a religion? Church of Scientology International, 2003, retrieved February 8, 2011.
My concern is this is one the most contentious point in the LRH life. I am not sure we are approaching it neutrally here. Its an establised part of Anti-sci rhetoric but its dubious accusation. However not having the sources in front of me I cannot evaluate how they are sourcing this statement? Do the sources just ask to assume good faith on the thier credbility? or do they actally cite something for these? I would be more comfortable with citation to more neutrally sourcing rather than polemical books. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 16:11, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You've got a good point that this section needs better sourcing. Hubbard's letter to Helen O'Brien was entered into court records in California. This is the primary source on which the third-party books base that claim. When I next have access to Lexis, I expect to be able to pull up the original source. Maybe a quote would be more neutral than an interpretation?
As for the "make a million dollars" quote, it's not just from the Reader's Digest; I've added a couple more references. MartinPoulter (talk) 23:38, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: there *is* a quote from the letter in the article, so that itself isn't a solution. I understand your questioning the sentence "This would enable it to claim tax exemptions and religious protections," and will work on an improvement. MartinPoulter (talk) 00:05, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
P.S.: While I accept the necessity of sourcing controversial claims as well as possible, and I've worked to improve the passage in question, I just want to say that I don't accept the broad-brush characterisation of "polemical books". The Times Literary Supplement's review of Miller's book actually used it as point of criticism that the book left conclusions to the reader. The Miller and Atack books have both been praised in reviews for meticulously documented research. In the case of A Piece of Blue Sky, it was actually a point of criticism in a review that Atack's concern to back up his claims with citations got in the way of the story. MartinPoulter (talk) 17:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This rewrite for NPOV is preferential to me does it seem fair to you? The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I approve of the Church's response being set out in more detail. Sorry to be pedantic, but I'm uneasy with "allegedly" on its own. That merely implies "somebody says", when we have Miller, the Independent, TIME and Reader's Digest stating it as fact, as well as a Los Angeles Times article from 27 August 1978, ("Scientology's L. Ron Hubbard: official biographies seem larger than life") which gives the same quote. There is also fellow sci-fi writer Lloyd Esbach whose autobiography quotes Hubbard saying "I'd like to start a religion. That's where the money is." This is used as a source by Atack and by Reitman. Along with other appearances in books and news, we're into double figures with the RSs that use either of these quotes. Miller quotes two more of Hubbard's friends attributing similar statements to Hubbard in the 40s: see Wikiquote.
I don't want to interrupt the narrative with a long discussion of what exact words Hubbard used. How about "The idea may not have been new; contemporaries later recalled him having said in the late 1940s that the best way to make money would be to start a religion." ? That bases the statement on memory, but the ex-post memory of multiple people. MartinPoulter (talk) 18:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perosnally a quote from publication 1978 says a quote from 1948 but no source other mention can be found prior to that source seem dubious to me. I also think the CoS source is equally suspicous for different but fairly obvious reasons. Thus both seem dubious I have reworded it again does this seem a fair compromise between the contesting narratives? The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, very happy with that. MartinPoulter (talk) 11:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The citation Walker, Jeff. The Ayn Rand cult, p. 275. Chicago: Open Court, 1999. ISBN 978-0-8126-9390-4 currently is the sources the statement when refering to Battlefield earth series: "They received mixed responses; as writer Jeff Walker puts it, they were "treated derisively by most critics but greatly admired by followers." I am not disputing this more confused what the context was for Walker to make the statement. As it seems an odd and from the looks of it unrelated source. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The book deals principally with Rand and Objectivism, but a passage draws parallels with Hubbard and Dianetics. The sentence in particular is "Hubbard and Rand both produced thousand-page-plus novels, treated derisively by most critics but greatly admired by followers (though Scientologists are not required to believe that Battlefield Earth or Mission Earth is the greatest novel of all time)." You can check this by searching on the phrase in Google Books. MartinPoulter (talk) 17:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Promotion Having reviewed the article I certify this article is written from neutrally using reliable sources that are verifiable. I certify under a good faith assumption that there are no substantial omissions or misrepresentations of material within the sources. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 15:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for the same reasons as Resident Anthropologist. WP:RS always needs a certain amount of judgment, especially when it comes to potentially CoI sources, which often are the best sources to back up basic points of fact in particular. However when an article is wholly or mostly based on such sources that does raise questions as to the integrity and balance of the article. That isn't something that can simply be brushed under the carpet no matter how much the nominator wishes to do so. Quantumsilverfish (talk) 20:27, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could you spell out your argument in more detail, please, so that it can be addressed? How does the Conflict of Interest policy apply to any of the article's sources? In what sense does the article lack balance or integrity? If this is about the Church of Scientology publications being cited, I dispute that the article is "wholly or mostly based on" them, or that they are presented as factual.
It seems we are having an open discussion here. I've set out my justification for the sourcing at length, and have no problems discussing further, so please Assume Good Faith rather than accuse me of brushing issues under the carpet. MartinPoulter (talk) 16:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Even with good faith, I'm afraid I don't understand what you are saying above either. Which ones are "such sources"? Johnbod (talk) 20:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This does not seem to me to be an actionable objection. I can't see what article improvements Quantumsilverfish is asking for. Thanks to Johnbod for reassuring me that I'm not just being dense. MartinPoulter (talk) 17:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At 21:37, 21 February 2011, I invited Quantumsilverfish to contribute further to this discussion. The account has not been active since making the comment above on 13 February. MartinPoulter (talk) 13:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The reviewer's opposition will not be considered actionable since there is no participate or follow-up. --Andy Walsh (talk) 03:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Very well-written - some of the few points below relate to quotations rather than the text itself. With essentially two very contradictory narratives in the sources, I think the article does a good job presenting both, with the "official" one largely by quotation, which is probably wise. Johnbod (talk) 16:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The highlighted (by me) bit in a Malko quote seems maybe odd: "Hubbard's career at George Washington University is important because many of his researches and published conclusions have been supported by his claims to be not only a graduate engineer,...". Probably an accurate quote, but just checking.
  • Re Navy service: "that he was only awarded a handful of campaign medals ..." seems begrudging! Suggest a rephrase.
  • Another quote check: "Hubbard] has worked on all types of cases. Institutionalized schizophrenics, apathies, manics, depressives, perverts, stuttering, neuroses – in all, nearly 1000 cases." Not "apathetics"?
  • The punctuation gets a bit messy at: "The idea may not have been a new one; a few years previously, he was reported to have said to a number of people[200] that "Writing for a penny a word is ridiculous. If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion."[180] (The Church of Scientology denies that Hubbard said this.[201])" Probably lose the last set of brackets.
  • "Hubbard, his wife Mary Sue and his secretary John Galusha became the administrators of all three corporations.[206]" - is this the correct term under US company law? Not "directors"? Johnbod (talk) 15:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments, Johnbod. Your first point requires me to consult a reference that I haven't got in front of me, so I'll comment later about that. The others I've fixed: yes, "apathies" is a genuine quote. MartinPoulter (talk) 22:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the Malko quote is verbatim. I'll add comments to the article to indicate the quotes as such. MartinPoulter (talk) 17:44, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is an image copyright check by Stifle.
  • Oppose pending resolution of the above. Stifle (talk) 12:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article seems to me to be extremely long.
    Indeed, it's a long article. Hubbard has been the subject of entire books, as well as chapters or mentions in many other books and a great deal of media coverage, both in his own lifetime and in the 25 years since. The role of the article is to give a summary overview, digesting down this mass of material while being complete enough to be "thorough; a definitive source for encyclopedic information." This is what the article does. (Note that I'm not the author: I'm not praising my own work). Hubbard had an incredibly eventful life by any standard, being notable as a Golden Age sci-fi writer, as the creator of Dianetics and Scientology, as a multi-millionaire recluse. In addition, there are widely divergent accounts of his life, and neutrality requires that these be given fair voice in the article. It is customary to break off sub-articles rather than put everything in one article, and that has already been done in the case of Hubbard's publications and his military career. The main article needs to give a thorough overview of the different aspects of the subject's life, and that's what it does. In summary, I don't think having a large amount of well-written, high-quality content is reason in itself to object to an FA. You're welcome to point out specific things that you think don't belong in the article: let's discuss those suggestions. MartinPoulter (talk) 17:04, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Not an objection, just a comment. Stifle (talk) 09:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it not customary to alternate images left and right as you go down through a page? Stifle (talk) 12:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your comments. I can't find this custom documented anywhere. Can you point me to where it is required by the Manual Of Style? I know that other articles have reached Featured Status without alternating left and right: it may just be something that's done when a lot of images are packed together to stop them stacking up. MartinPoulter (talk) 17:53, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I picked "customary" rather than "policy" or "MOS" because I am not aware of such a requirement. It's not an objection. Stifle (talk) 09:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies for misreading you, and thanks. MartinPoulter (talk) 17:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support shortened version. --JN466 03:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)Moral support. This is an amazing article. Well-written, and I believe even-handed and a real labour of love. It's also long, with hundreds of references, and I am not sure I will be able to offer more than moral support as part of this nomination, as checking the entire article and its references would take more time than I can devote to it at the moment.[reply]
  • There is one passage I spotted which needs looking at: "Hubbard is the Guinness World Record holder for the most published author, with 1,084 works[315] translated into 15 languages.[316] However, the Los Angeles Times reported in 1990 that Hubbard's followers had been buying large numbers of the books and re-issuing them to stores to boost sales.[317]"
  • First, I am positive that the number of languages is wrong and should be far higher; I've seen figures like 65 and later 71, which sound more realistic, and CoS claims that Hubbard holds the world record in that, too. Neither of these sources should be cited; we need someone checking through the most recent Guinness book commenting on Hubbard to see what it says.
  • Second, the two sentences don't jell logically; Hubbard's followers' buying books has no effect on the number of books Hubbard has written, or the number of languages they've been translated into; this sort of statement would only make sense if the previous sentence were about bestseller list appearances (probably it was at one time in the drafting.)
  • I noticed while googling that Hubbard may also hold an audiobook Guinness record: [5]; might be worth checking out. Cheers, --JN466 01:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks both for these improvements, which I've integrated into the article. I've also restored the LA Times ref: it would be remiss to discuss sales figures without mentioning that article, although Jayen is right that it made no sense in the context he quotes. MartinPoulter (talk) 18:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Great, thanks, Martin. --JN466 21:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both Atack and Streeter mention that Hubbard also attracted some praise for his performance as an officer: [6], [7]. Could we include that info for balance? --JN466 14:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The submarine episode should perhaps mention that Hubbard's crew endorsed his claims of having sunk a submarine; Moulton in particular echoed Hubbard's sentiments that "the decision to deny the presence of submarines was a political one, taken to avoid causing panic among the American public" (Streeter). Note that this doesn't necessarily make the submarine story any more believable, but it demonstrates that Hubbard was able to command considerable loyalty, even in the face of countervailing evidence. --JN466 15:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with these suggestions. Sorry for recent absence: day job has been kicking off over the last few days. I will have more time to look at the article (and the recent edits) within the next 24 hours. MartinPoulter (talk) 13:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now implemented. MartinPoulter (talk) 12:37, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Sorry but oppose. I started reading the article as it seemed well written and interesting. However, I soon realized that it is a humongous article! If this gets promoted, it will go on the mainpage soon, and readers will click to start reading the article but never finish it. I strongly suggest moving a lot of the contents to a new article titled "life of Hubbard". The article is 160k, and a lot of the details about his lie are not actually that interesting to deserved worth mentioning in this article. Nergaal (talk) 20:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I stroke down my oppose since I think a fair amount of work was done to reduce the prose size from 101 to 82kb. I would recommend reviewers to go back and make sure that the prose in the updated version is still good, but otherwise I have no other notable complaints about the article. Nice job! Nergaal (talk) 08:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Regarding the above two opposes, for reference, the largest current FA is Michael Jackson, which is 646K total page size, 184K Wiki text, and 79K readable prose size. L. Ron Hubbard is 360K total page size, 161K Wiki text, and 101K readable prose size. See Wikipedia:Featured articles/By length. The guideline on size is WP:SIZE; I am not opposing here as I haven't read the whole article, but it does look like this would be at the extreme end of the spectrum for size. Mike Christie (talk – library) 13:54, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The longest FA in terms of readable prose size seems to be Elvis Presley, at 15,667 words (using the Page Size option in the Toolbox), plus another 944 in the prose-format Elvis_Presley#Notes section, for a prose total of 16,611. As it stands The L. Ron Hubbard article has almost exactly the same number of prose words to read (16,614). --JN466 19:39, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (supported above) The length is I think justified by Hubbard's somewhat complicated life, and in particular by the need to include and balance what are in very many places two completely contradictory and opposed accounts of his life, the official and the unofficial. This is what this article does especially well, it seems to me. There are already many sub-articles, & I think Nergaal's unorthodox suggestion is a non-starter, as this is the "Life of ..." article. Personally I think opposes based on length alone might well be regarded as unactionable. Johnbod (talk) 16:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to Nergaal's comment and those since: I've addressed the length issue above in my reply to Stifle, and I totally agree with Johnbod's comment above. I understand the length is a sticking point, though. I think something can be done quite quickly to skip through his early life and some family detail and get more quickly to the "meat" of his major life events: I'll need a bit more time to work on this, and I've asked the original author to help. One of the criteria for an FA is thoroughness, and for this reason - along with the complexity of the subject and the diversity of sources - radical surgery on the article is unwarranted. Thanks Mike and JN for informing the discussion. MartinPoulter (talk) 16:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Thanks to everyone who has contributed to this review, and especially to Martin Poulter, who has put in a lot of work on the article. I accept that the first version of the article may have been longer than is optimal, so I have just posted a revised version that reduces the word count significantly. Four sections have been merged into two and the word count of every section has been reduced. I have managed this largely through rewording and cutting out some non-essential material. The article is now 325 kB total page size, 138 kB of Wiki text and 82 kB (13,353 words) of readable prose text - a reduction of 19.6% from the original 16,614 words. This is well under the 100 Kb of readable proze size suggested as the limit by WP:SIZE. Compared with the other articles on Wikipedia:Featured articles/By length, this would make it somewhere around the 32nd longest featured article, about the same size as Manchester or Columbia River. I hope that this resolves the concerns about size raised by Nergaal and Newty. I don't think it could be reduced much further without compromising its integrity for the reasons that Johnbod has already given.
  • Regarding Newty's comments about "undue weight" on Hubbard's military career, I am afraid that is a mistaken view. For Scientologists, Hubbard's military career is one of the most important aspects of his life. The Church of Scientology's chief spokesman has said recently that the veracity of Dianetics and Scientology rests on his military career (cf. [8]), which gives some indication of how crucial it is to Scientologists. Its relative importance to them is comparable to the resurrection of Jesus for Christians or the revelation of the Qur'an to Muhammad, as it represents the point at which Hubbard is supposed to have made his key spiritual breakthrough. Furthermore, Hubbard's military career infuses many aspects of Scientology, most obviously the naval-style uniforms worn by the Sea Org and Hubbard's adoption of naval ranks for Scientology members including himself. The military career section is not even the longest in the article. It provides an appropriate summary of a much longer spinoff article and has as much weight as it requires. Helatrobus (talk) 04:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for the improvements, Helatrobus: the article still has excellent flow. I agree about the significance of LRH's military career: It's mentioned extensively in both critical and Scientology sources. It's a centrally important era in his life, and highly contested, so it deserves the treatment that the article presently gives it. MartinPoulter (talk) 13:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to me that Newty's objection has been met, but I wait for Newty's own input. I note that Helatrobus has invited further discussion, and that Newty hasn't been on WP much in the last few days (Nor have I: apologies for that!) MartinPoulter (talk) 13:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delegate comment - I think it would be prudent for any reviewer who supported prior to the 3/1 changes, and who has not done so, to review the article to make sure they feel the same way. It appears the article was substantively altered (it's difficult for me to tell to what degree) and the changes may have had some effect on the narrative, etc. --Andy Walsh (talk) 03:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Martin Poulter, JN466 and Resident Anthropologist have already confirmed above that they are happy. I have left messages for WereSpielChequers and Johnbod to ask them to re-review the article. Of the opposing editors, Quantumsilverfish has not made any edits for three weeks, nor has he responded to queries about his vote. Newty has also not been on WP for several days, as Martin notes, but the other editor who opposed on the grounds of length (Nergaal) has confirmed that he is now happy with the article. The alterations have mainly consisted of rewording and the excision of some non-essential text, mostly in the first few sections. I would be grateful, by the way, if you or one of the other delegates could close this review as soon as possible, as I am keen to secure the March 13 slot on this month's queue in order to meet the centenary date. Helatrobus (talk) 04:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks for being proactive there. I will be going through the queue this weekend to promote/archive. --Andy Walsh (talk) 04:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On a spot-check, I noted problems with MOS:CAPTIONS. While not showstoppers, if there are any MoS nerds watching that would go through and fix these things, it would certainly strengthen the nomination. --Andy Walsh (talk) 04:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for spotting this. I've cut down the length of captions generally, turned some sentences into sentence fragments, and removed periods from sentence fragments. One caption still has full sentences, but I think it's justified. MartinPoulter (talk) 11:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-review I've reviewed the change, and certainly don't think they are an improvement. It was imo unwise to make such cuts, as much of the detail that makes the article so interesting and impressive is lost. It's not really worth damaging an article just to get FA (even if that was necessary to get FA, which is not clear). I'll still Support but rather less enthusiatically than before. Johnbod (talk) 13:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the re-review, Johnbod. There's still the future option to create a sub-page to preserve the discarded material. The edits have made the article as a whole more accessible, so I don't personally regard them as "damage". MartinPoulter (talk) 18:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain 21:28, 5 March 2011 [9].

Herbie Hewett

Nominator(s): Harrias talk 16:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because having worked on it for a while I think that it meets the criteria. A couple of points to note are that there are a couple of issues unresolved from the peer review; I'm currently working on getting these cleared up, mostly involving having a little dig around some offline sources that is taking more time than I'd like. However, please feel free to repeat any of these as a friendly reminder for me to get them done! As noted in the peer review: "Primarily due to the fact that he wasn't an overly prominent player, and due to the time period he played in, there is little information on his personal (and non-cricketing) life. It is unlikely that much more can be revealed on this, although little gems may be gleaned." Harrias talk 16:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs or dead external links. A couple of external redirects which may lead to link rot; see them with the tool in the upper right corner of this page. --PresN 19:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the ESPNcricinfo links, thanks. Harrias talk 20:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments

  • Publisher details required for Cricket: A Weekly Record of the Game. This was a weekly publication; you should give the numbers, as well as the years, of the issues you are using.
  • Likewise, give publisher details for Lillywhite's annual, MCC Cricket Scores and Biographies, The Complete History of Cricket Tours at Home and Abroad, Inner Templars who volunteered and served in the great war (1916) and Dewar's annual.
  • With the exception of Inner Templars who volunteered and served in the great war (1916), these sources were all added by User:Nigej. I have left a message on his talk page dated 17 January 2011, asking for most information on these references. If this information is still not forthcoming as we approach the close of this candidacy, I'll have to remove some of the information unfortunately. Harrias talk 16:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel this issue should have been resolved before bringing this to FAC, particularly if you yourself have not seen the cited material. The removal of material relating to these refs could substantially alter the article content. Brianboulton (talk) 12:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being honest, I forgot that hadn't been doing - I had been holding off on nominating the article until we'd worked the issue out one way or the other, but then was glancing through articles the other day, and couldn't remember why I hadn't nominated it. So it's me being a bit stupid I'm afraid. Looking online I've managed to work out a fair bit of information about some of the sources: see numbers 25, 43, 44. Although I haven't see the sources themselves to verify the information, will this level of detail on the references suffice? I can come up with similar for the Cricket: A weekly record of the game, but they would still be lacking issue number. Apologies again for my forgetfulness! Harrias talk 17:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consistency required in page ref formatting. E.g. ref 8: "p. 109", ref 57: "p46" Check throughout.
  • Have made them consistent.
  • Ref 77: what is the nature of this publication? Book, article or other?
*See my comment above Brianboulton (talk) 12:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 85: Wood → Woods
  • Ref 99: it should be stated that this obituary is from Wisden 1922.
  • I see some evidence of overreferencing in the article. For instance, why are there four citations for his wartime appointment as a Provost-marshal? One would do.
  • No single references covers all the facts given in the preceding sentence: each of the four gives something a little different: start date, end date, position and what branch he served in. I will try and clean the duplicates up higher in the article though. Harrias talk 16:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 97 (the obituary) mentions nothing about Hewett's war service; ref 98 only lists his name. These citations are redundant. I suggest you slightly rephrase the sentence so that it reflects the information in sources 95 and 96. Brianboulton (talk) 23:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly all the online sources are archived scorecards, so spotchecking has been highly limited. Other than the above points, sourcing seems adequate and reliable. I will try to return for a more general review later on. Brianboulton (talk) 12:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Generally a very good article. Certainly comprehensive. It may benefit from a light copy-edit in places, which I may be able to try in the next day or two if Harrias has no objections. A few points and questions.

In that case, maybe put that it. Was this from Nigej? --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it was from Nigej: he changed it slightly to "played in a trial match at Oxford but without success." - I've removed the 'but' which seemed superfluous, but I'm not sure if the overall change has made the sentence any less ambiguous? Harrias talk 21:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that covers it. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hewett's emotions were still raw from this loss when Surrey travelled to Taunton more than two months later..." Is this what the source says? If so (and it's David Foot, so I don't doubt it as he has a habit of embellishing his facts!), it may be reaching a little and I'm not sure if we can realistically know if his emotions were still raw or not.
I'd be inclined to leave it out as it strikes me as one of Mr Foot's flights of fancy (don't know if you ever read his biography of Hammond!), but I've no personal objection to this. --Sarastro1 (talk) 13:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "scoring freely": may not be clear to non-cricketers what this means. And he did not have especially big scores, so does this mean he scored quickly? Freely suggests big scores, I would have thought.
  • "Hewett began the 1893 season brightly"... Like freely, not sure about brightly.
  • He had a torch on his head: so it was brightly! No, I understand your view on both of these, but as yet haven't worked out what to put instead. I will change them when I think of an alternative (feel free to dive in if you can suggest anything). Harrias talk 11:07, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The visit of the touring Australians began the process which led to Hewett's resignation from the county." Is this sentence necessary? And if so, it sounds like it didn't just begin the process, it was the process!
  • "he scored 112 "made in less than two hours, and was a splendid display of free and taking cricket without a fault"" Quote needs attributing in the text.
Attributed, but the quote does not actually make sense. A splendid display of free and taking cricket? I'll ping Nigej for this, but it may just need cutting. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nigej replied and suggested taking it out as it was correct but slightly archaic, so I trimmed it back. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • For batting style, anything about his best shots, or his defence?
  • CA has him playing for Gents v Players at Lords here. Worth mentioning as the next best thing to a Test? And maybe point out the different levels of Gents v Players matches, that the Lord's game was the big one but the end of season ones were less important?
I'll have a look; I've certainly got something to ref this for post 1918, but I might know where to look. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You beat me to it in the end, and it reads very clearly now. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally, I wouldn't make too much of Somerset's first Championship game; I'm not sure the distinction between a County match 1885 and 1891 would have been that important as I think the start of the "official" Championship was not a big deal.
Looking at it, I think the part about the CC only just starting, but I probably wouldn't even mention the first match as it does not seem particularly important. The second seems much more interesting. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still a little dubious, but only because I believe it was all a little woolly around then, and I don't think they would have seen 1890 as much different to the previous years. But not a big deal at all. To be honest, Blackjack is the man for this and I believe he's gone. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe make more of the idea that he really emerged from no-where, after a moderate start to his career, to be one of the best batsmen in the country for a short time. The Wisden obituary suggests this if a ref is needed.
  • There are a few bits in his Times obituary which might be useful to add, such as his university matches and his unorthodox style.
  • Also, Times, 15 Sept 1892 ("County Cricket in 1892", p. 5) "Somerset's many brilliant feats, and the fine play of Messrs. Hewett and Palairet in particular, were a marked feature of this year's cricket."
Had a look at Times, but apart from match reports, there doesn't seem to be anything else helpful. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good generally, though. As I've got quite a long list of comments, I'll move them to the talk page once they've been addressed, if that is OK. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments: a fair bit to tweak around here: I have addressed some of the points towards the start of the article. I haven't signed each reply, hopefully that won't cause an issue. Will continue to cover the points over the next few days. Also, if you have a Times subscription, anything else you can dig out would be grand *wink* Harrias talk 22:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have a look, probably at the weekend. I also was reading the biography of C. B. Fry the other day and spotted something about Hewett having a row with the captain of the ship he was on. I'll dig that out as well if it helps. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

  • This bit from the lead feels repetitive: "Insults from the crowd prompted him to feel insulted".
  • Oxford and Somerset: The comma before the last quote of the section should be a semi-colon; otherwise the lead-in to it is weak.
  • Second class county cricket: Before the last quote in this section, I think "as" is meant to appear after "described".
  • County Championship cricket: "expecting an easy win to secure a consecutive championship." Feels like the number of consecutive titles would be a logical one-word addition here.
  • Touring North America: Comma needed after George Ricketts. Also, one should be added after Vernon Hill in Departure.
  • Spare letter needs fixing here: "David Foot offered s a more tempered opinion". Giants2008 (27 and counting) 04:35, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Ruhrfisch. I peer reviewed this some time ago and felt it was close to FA quality then. All of my concerns have been addressed since, and I am glad to support. I have a few quibbles, which do not detrct from my support.

  • Two sentences in a row in the first paragraph use "capable" - could one use bechanged to something else?
  • Is there supposed to be an apostrophe before Varsity in In his reminiscences, W. G. Grace suggests that Hewett "first won some little renown in Public School and 'Varsity cricket, but it was not until he joined Somersetshire ...?
  • This was brought up at the Good article review; to quote what my reply there: "I assume Grace was using 'Varsity as an abbreviation for university. Not sure, but it's what he uses." Harrias talk 12:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:MOSQUOTE says not to use single quotes as in Hewett scored 113 against the sixteen man 'All New York' on Staten Island,[51] a match in which he was standing in as captain ...
  • He either had a sister (or perhaps was married) to have a brother-in-law Hewett missed most of the match against Kent shortly thereafter, returning to Taunton due to the death of his brother-in-law, during which time George Wood replaced him as a substitute.[68] I know details are sparse, but should his sister be mentioned?
  • I would not link Reverend in the Personality and style section per WP:OVERLINK

I do not understand cricket, but I enjoyed this article. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:13, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – Just a couple small things

  • On that note, that seems like a somewhat iffy word for an encyclopedic lead. What about "Hewett was capable of surprising bowlers", for example? The bit this is referring to seems to largely be discussing his ability to hit shots in all directions that threw people off guard. Staxringold talkcontribs 02:24, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also from the lead, "England did not play any Test matches at home in 1892, or else Hewett would probably have won a Test cap." What's the sourcing for that? I understand the point of this sentence (to explain to a reader why he didn't win a Test cap, he didn't have the chance), but this seems like a pretty big statement that I don't see sourcing for. It seems to be referring to the Almanack quote from the Batsman of the Year section, but that doesn't really fully support this sentence. Staxringold talkcontribs 02:24, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under Departure from Somerset the sentence "The crowd continued to show....'the decision not to play was premature'" seems like a run-on sentence. Maybe change it to "The crowd continued to show their dismay at the decision, and eventually the Somerset officials asked the umpires to take another look at the ground. Woods supported this decision in his reminiscences, claiming that "the decision not to play was premature.""? Staxringold talkcontribs 02:24, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Small thing, but it seems like there are a couple quotes under Later cricket career and life with improper period placement. Lord Hawke's shouting and the block-quote about Mr. "Erbert" have the period outside the quotation marks. Obviously if there was more in the source that's fine, but if the sentence ended where the quote did the period should be inside the ""s. Staxringold talkcontribs 02:24, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support: A really good article which has got even better in the last few days, when I've been unable to do anything! I've performed a minor copy-edit, and my only worry is how readable it is to non-cricketers. The above supports reassure me about this, however. It is very comprehensive and readable, and I doubt there is anything about Hewett which is not covered and explained here. Great work. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:43, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • The thing is any article on a topic with it's own language (sports, military, biology, etc) will require a certain amount of knowledge, or clicking through to linked articles on the confusing terms. But so long as the links are there (where available), there's nothing more you can really do. Staxringold talkcontribs 00:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review? At a glance, there are problems with MOS:CAPTIONS. --Andy Walsh (talk) 21:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I was going to review the image licenses and source information, but now you've mentioned MOS:CAPTIONS, I'll look at that as well.
    • (1) File:HTHewett.jpg (on Commons). Used as lead image in infobox - would be nice to have the image cleaned up a bit, but that is beyond the scope of FAC really. Regarding sourcing, I was unable to verify the source information for this image. It was uploaded in October 2010 by User:Harrias and the source given as 'London News Agency Photo'. This is a now defunct photo agency (see here). It is not clear where the "pre-1901" date for the photo comes from. I would like there to be more information about where this image came from, when it was taken, and where the "pre 1901" date comes from. When I searched for this image, I found it for sale at www.cricket-books.com. It is a pity the date is unknown, as that would be nice to put in a caption for the image in the article.
    • Thanks for the image review. I assumed the pre-1901 date came from Hewett holding a cricket bat in the photo, and knowing he played his last high level cricket match in 1901. I searched some on Google images and could not find any other sources for this photo. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It did come from that, but thinking about it, he continued to play club cricket beyond that, so it could theoretically have been later. I've removed the image until more information can be found out about it.Harrias talk 00:06, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • (2) File:OxfordUniversityCricketXI1886.jpg (note: this image, at the time of this review, was on Wikipedia, not on Commons). Uploaded December 2010. Source: James Lillywhite's Cricketer's Annual for 1887. The image information page does not state who scanned this image from the annual. I presume the uploader, but that information should be added to the image page, or the source of the scan added if someone else scanned it. No author information is given (if the author is not known, that needs to be stated by the uploader). Someone needs to check the annual to see if photo credits were included, as that would make it by a known author who may not have died more than 70 years ago - if no author is known, then the photo is fine both here and on Commons. If there is a known author and the date of death is not known, best to use as a local copy under PD-US-1923. The caption given with the image in the article needs improving though.
    • (3) File:Somerset1892 RedLillywhite1893.jpg (note: this image, at the time of this review, was on Wikipedia, not on Commons). Uploaded February 2007. Source: James Lillywhite's Cricketers' Annual for 1893. Same comments as above. If the user who uploaded it scanned this from a copy of the annual they have, the image information page should say this. Ditto for finding out the information about who originally authored this image (again, see above, but in this case, the photographer is named on the photograph - the "J. Chaffin and Sons" bit - so that information should be put on the image information page and then apply what was said below for image 4). Caption could be improved a bit as "centre" doesn't really tell the reader where Hewett is in the image. Say which row he is in and where in that row.
    • (4) File:Hewett & Palairet.png (on Commons). Uploaded October 2010. This image has a well-filled out information template - please use this one as a model when working on the other images, especially the ones uploaded locally to Wikipedia. The only thing missing there is the date of publication (the date provided is the date the photograph was taken). Copyright is calculated from the date of first publication, not the date the photograph was taken, so if you only know that it was published in From Sammy to Jimmy: The Official History of Somerset County Cricket Club, you need to say when that work was published. The author of the image is named as a Mr Chaffin. Really, to be certain copyright has lapsed in the UK, you need to know when Mr Chaffin died (but that is usually impossible to work out). In this case, it appears to be J. Chaffin and Sons, which is confirmed by looking at this image. That is the same image (this one is a crop and a better scan), and that one says it was published in 1892, so it was published before 1923, so OK if uploaded on Wikipedia. For Commons, you need to be sure that Chaffin died more than 70 years ago. Suggested caption improvement: tell the reader if the record wicket partnership is shown on the board behind them.
    • (5) File:HTHewett1892.jpg (note: this image, at the time of this review, was on Wikipedia, not on Commons). Uploaded December 2010. Artwork published in 1892, hence PD-1923 for local uploads on Wikipedia. Source information provided. Author information not provided. Ideally, the source would be checked to see if the artist is named. Image placement seems strange, though, as this one is dated "circa 1890", but the images in earlier sections are 1892, so the chronology is reversed.
    Apologies for going into so much detail there. As numbered above, images 2-5 are likely fine if a bit more information can be added to the image information pages. However, I'm not happy about the information available for image 1. The information is too scanty really, and there is no indication of where it was first published, or who the photographer was. That, coupled with the online auction of the image, makes me uneasy about it. Carcharoth (talk) 23:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the lack of information regarding the lead image I propose to do the following:
  1. Remove the lead image
  2. Place File:HTHewett1892.jpg as the lead image.
  3. Contact Nigej to try and get more information on File:Somerset1892 RedLillywhite1893.jpg and File:OxfordUniversityCricketXI1886.jpg.
  4. Move File:Hewett & Palairet.png to purely Wikipedia.
  • That all sounds fine. As I said, the only real objection I see is to the first image (which you are intending to remove). If you can find out more about the image (specifically when it was first published and where), it will be fine. For the other images, they are all fine on Wikipedia (because they were published before 1923), and there is no requirement at FAC (as far as I know) to upload them locally if there is some doubt about whether they are OK for Commons. You may be better off asking on Commons about the images, and then uploading them locally depending on what you are told there (but again, as far as I know, the images only have to meet Wikipedia image policy, not Commons image policy - I only mention it here because of the possibility objections may be raised on Commons in future). Carcharoth (talk) 03:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - article images should also have alt text. See tool at top right of the review page and see WP:ALT TEXT. This is not currently part of the FA criteria (it was commented out in March 2010), but as the alt text tool is still included in the tool box, I still like to check. Having no alt text at all doesn't seem quite right. If this is not actionable, I'll raise this at WT:FAC and ask what has happened since the earlier discussions prior to March 2010. Carcharoth (talk) 00:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC) Per this, I'm striking this comment as not actionable under the FA criteria. Carcharoth (talk) 00:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images, will someone please confirm if all image issues are resolved? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • In my view, they are fine as far as Wikipedia and US copyright laws are concerned (all published before 1923). There may be issues on Commons under UK copyright laws as the photographer is known but not their death date, but Harrias has said he is looking into that. You may want to ask another reviewer to double-check this, though. Carcharoth (talk) 01:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain 21:28, 5 March 2011 [10].

2010 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup Final

Nominator(s): SkotyWATC 06:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The 97th edition of the oldest soccer competition in the United States broke an attendance record set in 1929 and was the first time a team repeated as champion since 1983. After a GA review, and an effective peer review, I believe it meets the requirements of a featured article. I look forward to following up on review comments/suggestions as quickly as possible. I invite the editors here to follow the link and learn more about the most recent iteration of this great American sporting event as they review the article. SkotyWATC 06:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FA Criteria 3 met Fasach Nua (talk) 12:06, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing the images. --SkotyWATC 01:49, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments:

  • "Major League Soccer" is a website, not a print source, so should not be italicised in the refs (per MOS)
  • The same is true of "United States Soccer Federation" (though the correct name appears to be "U.S. Soccer"); "TheCup.us"; "NASL.com" (should be written as "North Americam Soccer League"); "AOL Sports"; "goal.com"; "Seattle Sounders FC"; "ESPN"

Otherwise all sources and citations look good. Have not had time to spotcheck, though. Brianboulton (talk) 14:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brief comment: I will try to review this properly a little later; it looks an excellent piece of work. Just one thing for the moment; the statement that "the Timbers were able to tie it up" will read oddly to British ears. Here, in sporting terms, to "tie something up" means to seal a victory, whereas what you mean is that the Timbers "levelled the score". Would it offend American readers too much if you reworded for clarity? (In Britain, for reasons unknown, the term "tie" is never used in football, as we call it, to denote equal scores.) Brianboulton (talk) 09:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Often WP:ENGVAR comes into play in these discussions and editors end up favoring American terminology for American articles. That said, with your suggestion we can have the best for both hemespheres I think. I've made the change and I found another instance of the word "tied" one sentence later but it was redundant, so I removed it. Thanks for the suggestion. --SkotyWATC 20:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs or dead external links. --PresN 01:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help with the review. --SkotyWATC 16:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

  • Should "the" be added before Chicago Fire? I think it would help the grammar, but this is tricky with soccer teams.
Yes it should be. Fixed. --SkotyWATC 07:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • May I ask what a "bench goalkeeper" is? This is a term that's new to me. Does it mean a keeper who's normally on the bench. In the interest of reducing jargon (something I often can't find), I'd recommend a switch to "reserve goalkeeper" or something like it.
Good point. Changed. --SkotyWATC 07:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Try not to have repeating words like in "off a cross from Steve Zakuani. Zakuani...".
Fixed the one you pointed out and looked through the rest of the article for others. This appears to be the only instance. --SkotyWATC 07:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Analysis: Is "convinsing" British English or a typo? I can never tell with the Brits (and Aussies)...
I'm not British and this is an article about an American sporting event, so it's a typo. It's entirely possible that they like this way of spelling it though. I dunno. Thanks for catching this, I fixed it. --SkotyWATC 07:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove "to" from "In their last match before to the final".
I think it originally said "prior to the final", but someone changed it to "before" and forgot to remove the "to". Fixed. --SkotyWATC 07:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • First half: The last paragraph is stubby. It looks to me like it would fit in at the end of the previous paragraph. Do you agree?
Agreed. Fixed. --SkotyWATC 07:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-match: "With his two goals, Sanna Nyassi became the first player since MLS began playing in the tournament...". Well, the league itself has never fielded a side in the MLS Cup. I think the intention here is "first player since MLS teams began playing in the tournament...".
Excellent point. My brain misses nuances like this way too often. Fixed. --SkotyWATC 07:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add "the" before 2011–12 CONCACAF Champions League.
Fixed. --SkotyWATC 07:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Thank you so much for the thorough review. --SkotyWATC 07:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support – My issues have been resolved, and the rest of the article looks good to me. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Most of my issues were dealt with during the peer review, but I've had another look:

  • In the prose part of the match section, players' first names only need to be mentioned on the first occurance (with the obvious exception of the Marshalls).
  • I think the referee's name should be removed from the footballbox, to where the assistant referees are. It stands to reason that if you were interested in the assistants and fourth official, you would also be interested in the referee.
  • The paragraph beginning "With his two goals," seems needlessly long to me. The MLS began in 1996, so 1994 doesn't carry any additional relevance. The last two sentences don't make 100% clear whether Deleray scored multiple goals in 1994 itself, or whether the last of his multiple goals in Open Cup finals came in 1994. I'd shorten the entire paragraph to "Sanna Nyassi was the first player to score multiple goals in an Open Cup final since Mike Deleray in 1994." and find a home for it in the following paragraph, probably just after the one about Schmid.

—WFC— 23:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All very good points. I've fixed each one of them as suggested. Thank you for the review. --SkotyWATC 05:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The only other thing that I've noticed is that there are a few gaps of upwards of 10 minutes. Obviously that'll be because little happened, but do you reckon you could get a few words into some of them? It could literally be half a sentence in each case, and it may even be that one or two of them were so drab that nothing has been written about them, and therefore for WP:V reasons you won't be able to. But as an example I think you need something to bridge between the Crew's first goal and Seattle's equaliser. Even a phrase or sentence as simple as "Against the run of play, Seattle equalized...", "After a period of sustained possession, Seattle equalized..." or "Few chances were created in the period after the goal. Seattle equalized..." would suffice. —WFC— 18:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(if you were to use the last one, you'd probably need a more gentle introduction than "Seattle equalized", but you get the idea. —WFC— 18:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, this is tough. What's currently in the article are all of the events that were mentioned in post-match write-ups. However, here is the play-by-play article from the club (already referenced in a few cases). It has play summaries for about every 2-3 minute interval in the match. I've tried to strike a balance between detailing every event of the match and only hitting the highlights. I'll go back through that play-by-play listing and try to add some summary statements as you suggest to bridge between the more notable events of the match. I'll try to complete this work within the next day. Thanks for the suggestion. --SkotyWATC 05:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Support per my comments here and in the peer review. "Conditional" on the outcome of my last point, but as I've acknowledged, WP:V may prevent us from getting a lot more in, so it's just a matter of one way or the other being convinced that our coverage is as complete as can be. Raising the matter was more in hope than expectation, but either way I think it was worth doing. —WFC— 16:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay on this (life took precedence for a few days). I've gone back through several match reports and filled in a number of gaps in the prose covering the match itself. Here is the diff. Thank you for the suggestion to look at these again. The additions definitely represent more complete coverage of the actual event, so this is great. --SkotyWATC 20:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was worth the wait. I have to confess that when I saw the diff in isolation, I was slightly concerned about the balance of the match report- on first sight it seemed rather Seattle-centric. But I read the first and second half sections through as a whole and compared the prose with the stats, MLS Soccer play-by-play and the highlights, and concluded that the balance is fine. However (sorry to keep throwing these one last thing's in) the sentence "Seattle created many dangerous attacks early on as they continued to control the tempo of the game, but could not find a clean strike on goal." needs to be scrapped and rewritten, as it's too close to the source. —WFC— 06:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Changed it to: "Despite Seattle's continued control of the tempo of gameplay early in the second half, they were unable to create many scoring opportunities." This contains the same message, but completely different wording. Better I hope? --SkotyWATC 07:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. I can now be considered a full support. Well done! —WFC— 00:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Well written (although American English reads very strangely to me), comprehensive and well sourced. The issues above have been sorted out, and I can't see any other glaring problems. BigDom talk 19:49, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not comfortable about the use of non-independent sources: those of Major League Soccer and their franchises. Perhaps for some basic details of the match but the use here is much more extensive than that. The most obvious example is "The record-setting attendance at this final and the consecutive wins by Seattle were indicators of how "meaningful" the U.S. Open Cup tournament had become". This is a claim that should definitely be sourced independently of the MLS and the competition's participants who have a vested interest in promoting the event. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This particular sentence came up in the peer review and it was rewritten. The only independent source that covered the growing importance of the tournament was this one, but it doesn't say enough to back up the prose. I've removed the last paragraph completely. Since it was almost removed during peer review anyway, I think this is an appropriate resolution of the issue. Thanks for pointing this out. --SkotyWATC 22:06, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've done a sample of three paragraphs of the article: the section "First half". I have quite a few prose and sourcing concerns arising from those paragraphs which, as a sample, suggest to me that the article isn't quite there yet.
  • Seattle had most of the early scoring opportunities.: What source is this based on?
This was more of a summary statement than a challengable fact. That said, the phrase "Seattle had the better opportunities early" is used to describe the first half in this source. I've added the ref to this sentence. --SkotyWATC 01:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seattle midfield Steve Zakuani...: midfielder?
Yup, sorry. This sentence was modified as followup to recent FAC review comments, and I missed this. Fixed now. --SkotyWATC 01:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • who's should be whose
Fixed. This is one I never get right, so thanks for pointing this out. This was missed by earlier reviewers because it too was added very recently. --SkotyWATC 01:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some play-by-play content is sourced to footnote 30, which links here. Has the direction of this link changed? There's noplay-by-play analysis there.
The ref names got mixed up. Those should have been pointed at this one. I think the ref name was switched in one of the recent edits causing the whole group to point to the wrong URL. I've fixed them now. --SkotyWATC 01:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hejduk got forward behind: "forward behind" is not an easy expression to follow.
Completely rewritten based on the observation below. --SkotyWATC 01:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • passed the ball on the ground into Steven Lenhart: do you "pass the ball into" a person?
Got stuck between two thoughts on this one. "into the area" was the original intention, but it was changed to the person receiving the pass instead. However, this has been completely rewritten based on the observation below. --SkotyWATC 01:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The content on the Burns goal is too close to the wording of the source. The article says: The play developed on the right side as Hejduk got forward behind the Seattle defense and passed the ball on the ground into Steven Lenhart, who touched the ball to a wide-open Kevin Burns for a low shot past diving Kasey Keller into the corner of the goal. The source says: The buildup came on the right side, where defender Frankie Hejduk got behind the Seattle defense and cut the ball back to forward Steven Lenhart, who set up the wide-open Burns for a low shot to the corner of the goal past diving goalkeeper Kasey Keller. It's largely the same words re-arranged.
I've made an effort to paraphrase and rewrite whenever pulling information from sources for this article. I was obviously lazy on this one. I've rewritten the passage as follows: "The play developed on the right side when Hejduk made a low pass to Steven Lenhart from a forward position. Lenhart touched the ball to Kevin Burns for a low shot inside the far post for a goal." --SkotyWATC 01:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Few chances were created after the goal as Columbus' strong defensive play held off Seattle's attacks: This is sourced here but I can't find support for the statement in the source.
This, again, is a summary statement. However, the point about Columbus' strong defensive play was inspired by this text found in that source at the 37th minute: "Columbus is taking a highly defensive posture right now." I don't think I've misrepresented the source, but if you disagree, I'm happy to make changes. --SkotyWATC 01:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gruenebaum, who was still out of position after the earlier confusion: What earlier confusion? The article doesn't have any reference to earlier confusion.
This was in reference to this text "Crew goalkeeper Gruenebaum hesitated on how to handle the ball" appearing 2 sentences earlier. Perhaps too much of a stretch for the reader? Regardless, if I just remove "after the earlier confusion" it doesn't change much, so I've gone ahead and removed it. --SkotyWATC 01:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Columbus continued to play defensively following the goal and few scoring opportunities were created before halftime: This is sourced here but I can't find any statement supporting the Columbus playing defensively claim.--Mkativerata (talk) 22:55, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this is more of a summary statement than a reference to a direct quote in the source. The only entries in that source between Nayassi's goal and halftime are a clearance, a yellow card, and a hard foul all from Columbus. You may not think that describes defensive play, so I've removed the first half of that sentence. Not much is lost with the removal, so no biggie. --SkotyWATC 01:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While your comments may be construed as indicating a more systemic problems throughout the article, I don't believe that's the case. Most of the comments were regarding new additions from the past few days at WFC's request. Moreover, of all the sections in the article, the "First half" section was the one that saw the most added (and overall churn) from this request. Please have a look at another section. While I don't expect that any section is perfect, I don't think any will yield as many problems as the "First half" section did (for reasons I've explained). Regardless, thank you so much for your review. --SkotyWATC 01:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked at the Second half section now to expand my sample, and I'm sorry I can't support at the moment. Issues:
  • Columbus Crew midfielder Kevin Burns: Why is "midfielder" linked all of a sudden? It isn't earlier.
Because until very recently (10 days ago) it was the first occurance of of "midfielder" in the article. I've moved the wikilink to the first occurance which appears in the "First Half" section. Thanks for pointing this out. --SkotyWATC 04:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • James Riley is a new player here: needs a wikilink to help the reader.
This was also added 10 days ago (3 edits later) and I mistakenly assumed that he had been wikilinked earlier. Thanks for catching this as well. --SkotyWATC 04:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • and the ball to bounce out for a goal kick: the source says that Columbus cleared it away, not that the ball went out for a goal kick.
I can't explain this one. It made it through the GA review, the Peer Review, and this entire FA review. I've fixed it to say "and the ball to bounce away before being cleared by Columbus." Thank you for pointing this out. --SkotyWATC 04:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • crossed a pass: don't you just cross the ball?
Why not. To an American reader crossing a pass makes sense, but so does ball, so I'm happy to change it. --SkotyWATC 04:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • offensive-minded substitutions: on what basis are both substitutions offensive-minded, especially the Renteria/Lenhart switch which seems to be between two forwards.
Bringing on a forward with fresh legs in the second half to replace a tired forward is offensive-minded. Doing the same with a defender would not be. Not a problem though. I'm happy to remove the "offensive-minded" qualifier since you disagree. --SkotyWATC 04:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seattle made its first substitution in the 85th minute when Sanna Nyassi left the field to a standing ovation. The source says it was the 79th minute and says "huge", not "standing" ovation.
This was my attempt to maintain a neutral point of view. The word "huge" seems a little slanted. I'll just remove "standing" and leave it as "ovation". That's exactly in line with the source and still makes me feel goot about being neutral. --SkotyWATC 04:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The other inaccuracy was the reference to the 85th minute, when the source says it was the 79th.
I missed this comment earlier. Fixed now. --SkotyWATC 03:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overall the prose is tough in places. I think it needs work, but its the apparent discrepancies between article and source that concern me more. They're not huge things, for sure, but there's enough out of the sample to make me doubt whether the article is up to the high standards required of FA. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how you can make an overall statement about the article given that you've only reviewed two sections. As I expected, your very detailed review (thank you!) of the different section yielded fewer concerns than the first which makes me feel great about where the article actually is. I'm not saying that any section is perfect (though you've definitly picked the two least reviewed sections in the article) but I knew that the quality would be much higher outside of the "First half" section. Notwithstanding, thank you so much for taking the time to review another section. --SkotyWATC 04:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, the delegate can be satisfied that my concerns in respect of the two sections identified have been addressed (subject to the 79th/85th minute issue above). I just don't have the time to go through the rest of the article (I'm about to go on a four-day wikibreak) which is one of many reasons why I like to review by sampling sections of the article. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:31, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to review the sections you did. I suspect that you picked the "most raw" sections to review, which is great. I say this because I think the most exciting parts of the article are those filled with data, records, and quotes from players and coaches. Therefore, through the GA review, peer review, and most of the FA review, that's what editors and reviewers tended to focus on and fact check. This is why it's super valuable that you reviewed the sections you did. Thank you for doing that, and I'm glad I was able to satisfy the concerns you raised. I'm feeling much better about the quality after your review. --SkotyWATC 17:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As a member of the Sounders taskforce, I am happy to fully support this article. The layout is great and similar to the previous year's (FA). The lead is of an appropriate length. ENGVAR (although it is understandably be a pain for some) is consistent.I love the images and the quotes add some more highlights for those who prefer to skim (I still do not know if it is OK to start a quotebox or image after a third level header but it looks to no longer be prohibited). Some of the details (Leo not being able to start, formations, and so on) are awesome without going overboard. MoS is handled well with annoying (to do) things like nonbreaking spaces coded in (I ran the dash script for a handful of minor errors). The nice work is appreciated since the second half was a little fuzzy ;) .Cptnono (talk) 05:16, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up: I mentioned images but realized that Commons has some images of Sounders players in the earlier rounds. Not sure if they are better than the qupte box in that section but consider using an image. No change would not change my support but wanted to mention it.Cptnono (talk) 22:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be all for adding another picture to the article, but I couldn't find any images of the early 2010 USOC rounds over at Commons. Can you provide a pointer? Thanks. --SkotyWATC 20:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "Seattle Sounders FC won the match by defeating the Columbus Crew 2–1..." reads a little odd to me, perhaps "Seattle Sounders FC won the match, defeating the Columbus Crew 2–1"?
Good suggestion. Fixed. --SkotyWATC 03:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "of a sellout crowd of 31,311, the largest crowd" crowd is repetitive, maybe "of a sellout crowd of 31,311, the highest attendance at a U.S. Open Cup final."
Fixed with your suggestion. Thanks. --SkotyWATC 03:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Road to the final" a little evocative/journalistic, maybe just "route to the final" is better?
That's fine. "road to... somewhere" is more common in America than "route", but both make sense, so I'm following your suggestion. --SkotyWATC 03:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Later, in the second half," not sure you need "Later" here, it's clear from your description that it would be chronologically later...
Yes, it's redundant. Removed. --SkotyWATC 03:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • " of the game with 10 men on the field." is "on the field" really needed?
Redundant as well, removed. --SkotyWATC 03:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "scored on a volley" okay, perhaps this is USEng, and I'll leave it, but we'd all say "scored with a volley"
Both make sense in USEng, so I've switched it to your suggestion. --SkotyWATC 03:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need to repeat first names, e.g. Lenhart, Rentería, etc. Once mentioned in full the first time, just use surnames.
Good suggestion. I thought I had used the full name once per section per player, but I didn't even follow that practice very well. I've cleaned them all up, removing duplicates for 10 different players, such that the first instance of the players name in the article is their full name and wikilinked and all future references are just by last name. --SkotyWATC 03:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • " 3,411 fans" no, in front of a crowd of 3,411. No idea if they were fans or not.
Fixed. --SkotyWATC 03:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Andy Iro is overlinked (and doesn't need Andy to be repeated).
Fixed. --SkotyWATC 03:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should link "expansion club" because the rest of the world doesn't really have that concept.
Good suggestion. Fixed. --SkotyWATC 03:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "fans" again. Just be careful here to remain neutral.
Fixed. --SkotyWATC 03:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sounders FC hosted their quarterfinal match..." suddenly Sounders FC has become a plural concept. In BritEng this is fine, but you've made a stringent effort thusfar to maintain a singular approach to these teams. Be internally consistent. Or be British and interchange as and when, to make the flow of the language work best.
Good catch. This was subtle and I lost track of it over several edits. I fixed all references to Sounders FC, Seattle, Columbus, "the Crew", etc. to be singular. --SkotyWATC 04:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "goalkeeper Terry Boss also had two saves in " odd to say "had" saves, he actually "made" the saves...
Good point. Fixed. --SkotyWATC 03:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Steve Zakuani, who had just returned from..." again, no need to keep repeating first names for people who are unambiguously identified by their surnames.
Fixed. --SkotyWATC 03:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On August 26, 2010, prior to the semifinal matches, U.S. Soccer announced the potential sites for the final, depending on the outcome of the semifinals." repetitive with semifinals. Would be good to reword.
Removed "prior to the semifinal matches" since it's implied that the announcement came first by the ending clause. --SkotyWATC 03:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "scheduling since it would be difficult for..." that's his opinion, so "since he claimed it would be..."
Very good. Fixed. --SkotyWATC 03:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and within 6 days " six days.
Right, I'm embarrassed that I missed this one. I usually am good at catching these. Thank you. Fixed. --SkotyWATC 03:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "had won 9 times and lost 3 in the U.S. Open Cup" nine/three.
Aaahhh! I am ashamed. Fixed. --SkotyWATC 03:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "kick off" or "kickoff"? Be internally consistent.
Fixed. "kickoff" is used everywhere now.
  • "did not suit up for the game due to U.S. Open Cup roster limitations" I have no idea what this means, to "suit up"?
Changed it to "was unavailable due to U.S. Open Cup roster limitations". I guess this is an American-ism. Hopefully this makes it work for everyone. --SkotyWATC 03:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • James Riley is a dab page.
This sentence (and link) was added after the DAB review above. Fixed. --SkotyWATC 03:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ongoing repetition of first names which is unnecessary.
Fixed. --SkotyWATC 03:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, this was a great copy review. Thank you so much for taking the time to read the article. Hopefully I've addressed all of the items you raised. --SkotyWATC 03:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support my comments have been addressed, I think the article is in a very good state, well done. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've just been through the rest of the article and couldn't find any glaring problems. I've made a few minor prose fixes. Just one thing that I'd highlight -- some of the repeat naming of each team is a little off. For example:

On September 1, 2010, the Columbus Crew visited Washington, D.C. to face MLS club D.C. United in the semifinal match at RFK Stadium in front of a crowd of 3,411.[10] Pablo Hernandez scored in the 17th minute on a penalty kick to give D.C. an early lead which it almost held for the victory. However, in the 89th minute D.C.'s Marc Burch deflected a shot by Columbus's Iro into the net for an own goal, tying the score and sending the match into extra time. In the 98th minute, the Crew's Lenhart dribbled the ball into the 18-yard box and was tripped by D.C. United's Carey Talley to draw a penalty. Guillermo Barros Schelotto took the penalty kick and scored the winning goal. The 2–1 final score secured the Columbus Crew's spot in the final.

Can we do without "Columbus" in the final sentence given the mentions earlier in the paragraph? I think there are a few of these in the article. Otherwise, particularly given The Rambling Man's review of much of the content I didn't sample, I no longer have any objection to the article passing. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain 21:28, 5 March 2011 [11].

Parkinson's disease

Nominator(s): Garrondo (talk) 12:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A (what I feel) is a complete article in this important disease. PD is the most common neurodegenerative disorder after Alzheimer's disease. The article is considered vital, is considered of top importance by the medicine project and receives almost 300000 visits each month. It has recently been considered a GA after a complete review by a user expert in neuroscience, I feel it covers all the main aspects of the disease without going into unnecessary detail, and I have tried to use as high quality sources as possible. It has been stable for more than a year and while my prose is probably not brilliant it has been copy-edited by several editors, and I only hope that this review will further improve the style so it can be considered one of our best pieces of work.--Garrondo (talk) 12:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I recently did the GA review for this article. My focus was on correctness, comprehensiveness, verifiability, and understandability, and I believe that it reaches FA level in those respects, although there are parts that could perhaps be made more understandable to a broad audience. I have given comparatively less attention to aspects such as whether the images were properly licensed and the format is completely standard, but I am not specifically aware of any problems in those respects. This is a very important article because it is read by millions of people each year, and a substantial number of them are likely to have their interactions with people with PD shaped by our article -- so it's definitely worth our time to get this right. Looie496 (talk) 18:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments from JFW | T@lk 02:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some of the links are redlinks. In the past I was advised that it might be better to create a stub for the relevant articles rather than having an FA with redlinks.
      • I would say that that is exactly what red links are for: to encourage article creation. It would be great if I created them, but I would say that leaving them for others to create them would also be great, and in my opinion should not affect this FAC, since the article under scrutiny is neither best nor worse by having more articles in wikipedia. Nevertheless I will try to create some of them. --Garrondo (talk) 09:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Parts of the NICE/NCC-CC guideline are cited in separate references. Would it be an idea to make this an article reference (similar to what James and I have been doing at dengue fever)?
      • I would rather not have a notes section for references and a references section also for references as in dengue fever. I do not see the advantages of such proposal. Nevertheless I am open for discussion and comments from other reviewers in this issue.--Garrondo (talk) 09:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The reference to Garcia Ruiz (2004) has a dead link (PMID 15568171). Is there a comparable source in English (I suspect there may not be)?
      • I have tried to find a similar article in English but I have not been able to. I believe that this is one of those strange cases were a foreign ref does a better job than an English one... Regarding the link I have simply eliminated it.--Garrondo (talk) 09:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Causes" has only one subsection. Is the level 3 header needed?
    • In causes, I see no mention of a previous association with glucocerebrosidase mutations (PMID 15525722). Has it been disproven?
      • It was partly there (GBA), but actually was misexplained, since it said that it was a gene common to familial PD also. I have corrected text and added further info on GBA causing Gaucher's disease. Many thanks for the catch.--Garrondo (talk) 13:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm struggling with the image in "pathophysiology". Clearly, some of the layers moved about when the images were converted to PNG format. Would it be more useful to have a more schematic drawing, or for it to be redrawn?
    • "Epidemiology" has only one subsection. Is the level 3 header needed? Alternatively, could the risk and protective factors be split in separate sections?
    • I have fixed some phrasing and grammar issues. There are definitely a few remaining, but I reckon they will be ironed out in the course of the FAC.
    • I am happy to support FA status for this vital article. It has travelled a long rocky road, and it is now a source of pride for our WikiProject and Wikipedia as a whole. JFW | T@lk 21:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments by Axl
    • From the lead section, paragraph 1: "Cognitive and neurobehavioral problems, including dementia, are common in the advanced stages of the disease." I suspect that many readers may not know what "neurobehavioral problems" are. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • From the lead section, paragraph 2: "Current treatments are effective at managing the early motor symptoms of the disease, through the use of levodopa, dopamine agonists and MAO-B inhibitors." I am surprised to see the MAO-B inhibitors mentioned in the lead. The DOPA-decarboxylase inhibitors are invariably used with levodopa. MAO-B inhibitors are infrequently used. Even the COMT inhibitors are used more often than the MAO-B inhibitors in the modern approach. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have eliminated the reference to MAO-B inhibitors in the lead. Reason for not commenting about DOPA-decarboxylase inhibitors in lead is precisely that they are sistematically used in combination with levodopa, and in the text they are explained under the levodopa subsection, instead of independently.--Garrondo (talk) 12:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • From the lead section, paragraph 4: "The disease is named after English surgeon James Parkinson, who gave the first detailed description of it in "An Essay on the Shaking Palsy" (1817). " I don't think that needs to be mentioned in the lead, particularly when the next sentence is irrelevant to it. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I fully disagree in this case. A believe that a line on history in the lead is quite important. However I am more than open to proposals in how to better integrate the sentence in the lead.--Garrondo (talk) 12:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • How about moving the description of James Parkinson later on, where the advocacy action uses his birthday. "PD is a costly disease to society. Several major organizations promote research and improvement of quality of life of those with the disease and their families. Research directions include a search of new animal models of the disease, and investigations of the potential usefulness of gene therapy, stem cells transplants and neuroprotective agents. Advocacy actions include the use of a red tulip as the symbol of the disease, and world Parkinson's day, April 11, chosen as the birthday of the English surgeon James Parkinson, who gave the first detailed description of PD in "An Essay on the Shaking Palsy" (1817). People with PD who have greatly affected public awareness include Michael J. Fox and Muhammad Ali." Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:31, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • From "Signs and symptoms", first paragraph: "Non-motor symptoms, which include autonomic dysfunction, cognitive and neurobehavioral problems, and sensory and sleep difficulties, are also common." Are "cognitive and neurobehavioral problems" the same as "neuropsychiatric" symptoms? If so, the sentence should be changed in line with the subsection's title. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Signs and symptoms", subsection "Neuropsychiatric", paragraph 4. Isn't it worth mentioning dopamine dysregulation syndrome? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • From "Signs and symptoms", subsection "Other": "PD is also related to several ophthalmological abnormalities ... ." Why not "eye abnormalities"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • From "Causes", paragraph 4: "LRRK is the most common known cause of familial and sporadic PD...". Should this be "Mutation in LRRK2 is the most common known cause..."? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fixed: Since the word mutation appeared twice in the following sentece I thought it was clear enough. I have reworded to: Alterations in LRRK are the most common known cause of familial and sporadic PD, with mutations in the gene in up to 10% of patients with a family history of the disease. I have used alterations so as not to use 3 times the word mutation in just 2 sentences.--Garrondo (talk) 18:18, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • From "Causes", last paragraph: "Several other mutations in 3 different genes have been found to be risk factors for sporadic PD. Two of these genes are the same as for familial forms of the disease (SNCA and LRRK2). The third is the glucocerebrosidase (GBA) gene...". The preceding paragraph already mentioned that LRRK2 causes sporadic PD. Also, that paragraph mentioned G2019S as a cause of sporadic PD. How about: "Mutations in several different genes—including SNCA, LRRK2 and G2019S—are risk factors for sporadic PD. Mutations in the glucocerebrosidase (GBA) gene are also associated with sporadic PD as well as Gaucher's disease." Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • G2019S is a specific mutation of LRRK2, not a different gene. Additionally it would be incorrect to say "Mutations in several different genes": 3 genes are known up to date, witch several mutations in them (over 40 in the case of LRRK2) being related to PD. To address the comment I have: 1-eliminated mention to G2019S, it was probably too specific and prone to mislead readers; 2-Move paragraph on sporadic cases to earlier in the section; 3-Leave last paragraphs on SNCA and LRRK2, since they are related both to sporadic and familial PD. What do you think?--Garrondo (talk) 12:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • From "Causes", paragraph 3: "The most extensively studied PD-related genes are SNCA and LRRK2. Mutations in other genes; including SNCA, LRRK2 and glucocerebrosidase (GBA), have been found to be risk factors for sporadic PD." The second sentence doesn't seem to follow on from the first; the first sentence mentions SNCA and LRRK2 so they are not "other genes" in the second sentence. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • From "Pathophysiology", subsection "Pathology": "As the disease progresses, Lewy bodies later attain the substantia nigra...". "Attain"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • From "Management", paragraph 1: "The main families of drugs useful for treating motor symptoms are levodopa, dopamine agonists and MAO-B inhibitors." I am not happy about that sentence. There is no mention of the DOPA-decarboxylase inhibitors or the COMT inhibitors. I realise that those enzyme inhibitors are described in the section entitled "Levodopa". Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • What do you think about: "The main families of drugs useful for treating motor symptoms are levodopa (usually combined with DOPA-decarboxylase or COMT inhibitors) dopamine agonists and MAO-B inhibitors."?--Garrondo (talk) 08:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's close. However levodopa is not combined with DOPA-decarboxylase. You're also missing a comma after the closing bracket. How about: "The main families of drugs useful for treating motor symptoms are levodopa (usually combined with a DOPA-decarboxylase inhibitor or COMT inhibitor), dopamine agonists and MAO-B inhibitors." Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • From "Management", subsection "Levodopa", paragraph 2: "Only 5-10% of L-DOPA crosses the blood-brain barrier." Do the DOPA-decarboxylase inhibitors/COMT inhibitors increase the amount of L-DOPA crossing the blood-brain barrier? I don't actually know the answer to this. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • From the source originating the paragraph:Levodopa is now always combined with carbidopa (co-careldopa) or benserazide (co-beneldopa) to block its metabolism by dopa decarboxylase. This increases levodopa bioavailability by twofold to threefold and reduces peripheral side effects. However, only 5–10% of each levodopa dose crosses the blood-brain barrier, the rest being metabolised to 3-O-methyldopa by catechol-O-methyl transferase (COMT). The aim of COMT inhibitors is to further reduce the metabolism of levodopa and thus increase the amount crossing into the brain. Answer would be yes, since the more quantity of L-DOPA is available the more will cross the BB-barrier.--Garrondo (talk) 11:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • From "Management", subsection "Levodopa", paragraph 3: "Entacapone is available for treatment alone (COMTan) or combined with carbidopa and levodopa (Stalevo)." This sentence implies that entacapone can be used as single-agent treatment. Is this correct? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • From "Management", subsection "Levodopa", paragraph 4: "Levodopa results in a reduction in the endogenous formation of L-DOPA, and eventually becomes counterproductive. Levodopa preparations lead in the long term to the development of motor complications characterized by involuntary movements called dyskinesias." These sentences imply that the reduction of endogenous L-DOPA is responsible for the dyskinesias. Is this correct? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • From "Management", subsection "Levodopa", paragraph 4: "Delaying the initiation of dopatherapy ... is also common practice." Is "dopatherapy" a real word? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • From "Management", subsection "Levodopa", paragraph 4: "Delaying the initiation of therapy with levodopa, using instead alternatives for some time, is also common practice." Are the "alternatives" dopamine agonists? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • From "Management", subsection "Dopamine agonists", paragraph 2: "Agonists at higher doses have also been related to a variety of impulse control disorders." Does this refer to dopamine dysregulation syndrome? Low dose dopamine agonists have not been associated with impulse control disorders? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually dopamine agonists have been related to impulse control disorder even more strongly than levodopa. I have changed sentence to: agonists have been related to a impulse control disorders even more strongly than levodopa. Example of dysfunctional behaviors include dopamine dysregulation syndrome, compulsive sexual activity and eating, and pathological gambling and shopping. Only problem is that right now similar info appears in the signs and symptoms section, and the levodopa and dopamine agonists subsections of management. Any ideas on how to avoid duplication? --Garrondo (talk) 07:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • How about "Agonists have been related to impulse control disorders (such as dopamine dysregulation syndrome) even more strongly than levodopa." There is no need to include the second sentence. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have attended recent talks by experts with yet unpublished data who believe that actually DDS is more related to levodopa and other impulse control disorders to agonists, so while I do not have a ref for it I would prefer to have as an example of impulse control disorder any other than DDS in the dopamine agonists subsection. In my opinion best way out would be simply to do not name any example here as they have already been detailed in the levodopa subsection. Your opinion? --Garrondo (talk) 16:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • From "Management", subsection "MAO-B inhibitors": "Evidence on their efficacy in the advanced stage is reduced...". Does this mean that evidence is lacking, or that they are less effective in the advanced stage? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The latter. I have changed the sentence to "Studies on its effectiveness in the advanced stage are scarce although results point towards them being useful to reduce fluctuations between on and off periods." --Garrondo (talk) 13:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • From "Management", subsection "Rehabilitation": "One of the most widely practiced treatments for speech disorders associated with Parkinson's disease is the Lee Silverman voice treatment (LSVT), which focuses on increasing vocal loudness and has an intensive approach for one month. Speech therapy and specifically LSVT may improve voice and speech function." There is duplication of info in these two sentences. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are right: changed to:... is the Lee Silverman voice treatment (LSVT), which focuses on increasing vocal loudness and has an intensive approach for one month. Speech therapy and specifically LSVT... --Garrondo (talk) 13:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some new text has appeared in "Management", subsection "Dopamine agonists", paragraph 3: "Two dopamine agonists that are administered through skin patches (lisuride and rotigotine) have been recently found to be useful for initial patients and preliminary positive results has also been published on the control of off states in patients in the advanced state." What are "initial patients"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • From "Prognosis", paragraph 1: "However, it is uncommon to find untreated people nowadays and medication has improved the prognosis of motor symptoms...". Should this read "it is not uncommon"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nope: it is correct: nowadays most patients are treated, so time to dependency has increased and data to the natural history of the (untreated) disease is very scarce and comes from quite old studies.--Garrondo (talk) 13:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The two sections of the sentence: "it is uncommon to find untreated people nowadays" & "medication has improved the prognosis of motor symptoms" do not bear any relation to each other. Why are they linked by the conjunction "and"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Eliminated.--Garrondo (talk) 15:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • From "Prognosis", paragraph 1: "In people taking levodopa, the mean progression of symptoms to a stage of high dependency takes around 15 years." Really? How do you (or the authors of the reference) calculate the mean time? I expect that there is a positively skewed distribution. What about people who die before they reach the stage of high dependency? The median time would be much more meaningful than the mean time. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is not really clear in the ref how they calculate the figure. They only give a table with 4 different studies on the issue. Caption states: latencies to reach succesive Hoehn and Yahr stages. I have reworded to eliminate term "median" so it does not led to confusion.--Garrondo (talk) 13:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 0

Sources comments: The sources are nearly all from scholarly articles or books and look 100 percent reliable. I have only a couple of format queries/suggestions:-

I have not been able to carry out any spotchecks. Otherwise I'm confident that sources meet the required criteria. Brianboulton (talk) 19:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also: three disambiguation links revealed by the toolbox, top left of this page. Brianboulton (talk) 19:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Curiosity: I don't think it's strictly necessary, but the description of the protective effect of nicotine immediately makes me curious about the effect of lobeline (and Lobelia, so-called "Devil's tobacco"). It's talked about online quite a bit, with both positive[12] and negative[13] opinions readily available in scientific-looking sources. If someone has some thoughts handy about the topic, I think it would be an interesting addition. You don't have to go on for very long about it of course. Wnt (talk) 05:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am no expert in pharmacology; nevertheless sources provided actually do not seem very reliable, and a quick search in pubmed of lobeline+parkinson's disease yields no results; so most probably the effects of lobeline for PD have not been much investigated, and therefore mention has no place in the article. Even the mechanism by which nicoteine protects from PD is very much unknownon. --Garrondo (talk) 07:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I concur that there is nothing showing use of lobeline to treat Parkinson's, except for that 2007 paper from Henan about a rat model of Parkinson's. (That paper has not been cited, according to Google Scholar). The NIH has funded a study of lobeline as a treatment for methamphetamine abuse. Our lobeline article has current references on the drug. EdJohnston (talk) 21:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs or dead external links. 2 external redirects, see them with the tool in the upper right corner of this page. --PresN 22:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All the images are on the right hand side, which can lead to white spaces in the article in some browsers. The protein structure of File:GDNF.jpg looks different to that at the source given [14]. There is a link at the source to some programs that I presume allow one to rotate the image, which I haven't done because they look way above my level of knowledge. Is the difference so great that the structure shown is not actually that of GDNF, or are they actually the same but seen from different angles? DrKiernan (talk) 12:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Regarding all on the right: reason is that as there are quite a lot of images if there are some on the left they make titles to move to the middle to the screen. However I do not know what is best or if there is any global recommendation on the issue... Regarding the protein... I actually have no idea of chemistry, I simply searched in commons for an image of the protein, and I assumed it was correct. Nevertheless I do not think that there is any reason to believe it is not GDNF; is it?--Garrondo (talk) 12:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support—niiiice. It was overlinked with common terms. For example, bias? Risk factor? Injection? I've unlinked. Tony (talk) 12:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support from Lee∴V (talk • contribs)
  • Brilliant efforts thus far!
  • In the lead, the phrase 'PD is a costly disease to society.' has little context - should be fleshed out with numbers or reasoning or left out.Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 17:05, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Smoking is protective risk factor - As with anything smoking/alcohol related I'd be very cautious about having this in the lead - it really needs to be put into context, if true it is very interesting but not really a good preventative measure - reduce chance of developing rare disorder whilst greatly increasing chances of various other health issues!Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 17:05, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the advanced stages of the disease, cognitive and behavioral problems, including dementia are common - either commas both before and after "including dementia' or none, but not one....:::Thanks for the catch.--Garrondo (talk) 20:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
...insufficient formation and action of dopamine.. "insufficient formation and activity of dopamine " (??):::Changed.--Garrondo (talk) 20:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
so diagnosis is mainly based on symptoms with tests such as neuroimaging being used to confirm diagnosis - two diagnoses in the one sentence - I concede it might be difficult to avoid this here...:::Changed to "for confirmation".--Garrondo (talk) 20:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
mitigating symptoms - why not just "lessening" or "reducing"?:::Lessening sounds great.--Garrondo (talk) 20:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Parkinsonisms can be divided into four subtypes.. - I haven't seen it pluralised like this. Single as a collective noun?
Not sure what you mean. Could you clarify?--Garrondo (talk) 20:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have never seen the word "parkinsonisms" -I would have thought "Parkinsonism can be divided into four subtypes.." or used the term "Parkinsonian syndromes.." Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:44, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It does exist (around 80 hits in pubmed) although it may be rare. I have changed to Parkinsonian syndromes as suggested.--Garrondo (talk) 09:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the Classification section you have " parkinson plus" with and without hyphens...needs conforming to one or the other.:::No hyphens now.--Garrondo (talk) 20:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I think we owe it to the readers to try and make the article as accessible as possible. It is looking better and I will support soon. I am just mindful of the discussion below and am trying to look extra hard at accessibility vs. jargon vs. losing meaning Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:44, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do we lose any meaning by using the word "drowsiness" rather than "somnolence"?
Done--Garrondo (talk) 16:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
how about "stiffness" for "rigidity"
Most source use rigidity, so in this case I would rather leave it.--Garrondo (talk) 16:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
is any meaning lost by losing the first two words of "At present, there is no cure for Parkinson's disease..."?
Done... Good catch of "Wp:crystal". Changed.--Garrondo (talk) 16:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PD may be less prevalent in those of African and Asian ancestry, although this finding is controversial -why? Do you mean "disputed"?
yeap: changed.--Garrondo (talk) 16:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
repeated inline reference tags to the same reference - If I have a series of sentences reffed by the same source, I often just stick the ref at the end of the series and add <!-- cites previous four sentences --> at the end, os if someone edits it, they can see what the ref actually references. I think this looks better than several same numbers in a row, but not a deal-breaker.....
I add a citation after each line for two reasons: while improving the article it helps me to see what sentences I have checked up against a ref. Second is related to a side problem of WP being edited by anyone: if somebody adds a sentence between other sentences is quite difficult to know if it is backed up by a ref. Adding a ref after each sentence makes it much harder this to occur and unref facts are spotted much easier. I would rather leave refs, but I do not know if there is a consensus for this issue.--Garrondo (talk) 16:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine then, I can see your reasoning on that one. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


To conclude, I am not seeing much jargon that can be substituted with more common words without losing meaning. Leaning support once queries looked at. Might look over again too.Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break 1

Provisional impression: too much jargon in introduction. Needs more histopathology adding to the pathology section including brain cell types. "Festination" is rapid shuffling steps and leaning foreword. I did not see palliation in the article, but I could have missed it. As far as I am aware "paralysis agitans" is also used in modern times. I see problems with the article almost everywhere I look; for example, the article says "Most people with Parkinson's disease have idiopathic Parkinson's disease (having no specific known cause).", actually Parkinson's disease is idiopathic. I can only possibly come to the conclusion that this article is not at FA standard. and that it needs a considerable amount of work to bring it to that standard. Snowman (talk) 00:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all pretty minor points, and with the exception of the "festination" issue (which is easily fixed), all of them are dubious. The "palliation" point is strange, since the current treatment of PD consists of nothing but palliation. Since I don't see any real justification for the level of negativity in this critique, I don't see how it can be addressed. Looie496 (talk) 00:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Palliative treatment being treatment at the end of life. The article would do well to describe the gross pathology. Another example is how the section on symptoms starts; "Four motor symptoms are considered cardinal in PD". However, the disease starts gradually, and intellectual capacity is often maintained in the early stages. The article does not give a good clinical picture of the illness. Historical aspects of anticholinergic treatment are missing. I am puzzled by your comment; "Those are all pretty minor points", after I wrote that there are problems everywhere I look. I have not changed my mind, and I do not intend participating in a prolonged discussion. Snowman (talk) 01:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a primary contributor to this article, but I reviewed it and I'm not keen on the idea that I might have missed a bunch of important things. Also I know that there is a reluctance to promote articles as long as justified opposition remains, so I'll address each specific point here:
  • Too much jargon in intro. Possibly, but one must be careful to say things precisely.
  • Festination. Valid point.
  • Paralysis agitans. Understood by doctors but not widely used.
  • Idiopathic. This term is used erratically in the literature, and causes trouble for everybody.
  • Gross pathology. Belongs in a subarticle in my opinion.
  • Intellectual capacity maintained early. The article tries to say this, perhaps not clearly enough.
  • History of anticholinergic treatments. Too much detail for this article in my opinion.
When a review says that there are problems everywhere, but nearly all of the specifically mentioned problems are arguable at best, it's hard to know what to do about it. Looie496 (talk) 01:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please ponder recent edits to the introduction. Gross pathology is key here - details of the change in the appearance of the substantia nigra in PA is not even mentioned. That intellectual capacity is maintained early in the disease was not properly included in the clinical section. Anticholinergic treatment was the first ever drug treatment of PA, and the discovery of its action was somewhat accidental, and probably would be interesting light reading in the article. I can not understand where you are coming from. I would like to be helpful, although presumptive, and suggest that you have become a little enmeshed with the article, and this may be a time for you to listen more. Snowman (talk) 12:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry to see that you do not find the article good enough. Since most reviewers until this moment disagree with you I hope you could be more specific with your comments. I will try to address some of your comments.--Garrondo (talk) 07:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel that there is no need for you to express sorrow that I find the article inadequate for FA, and to be honest I think that a patronising approach is not helpful. I would take a long time to catalogue problems I have with the article; nevertheless, for a start please concentrate on careful copy-editing section by section to improve the prose, make the topic more understandable by reducing vague terms, reduce potential ambiguities, and check for prose that is misleading or erroneous. Quite often reviewers support an article early in the course of an FA, but it can take a further 500–1000 edits before the article is accepted on the FA list. Snowman (talk) 12:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Still not really helpful. Comments should be addreasseable and to recommend elimination of "vague terms, reduce potential ambiguities, and check for prose that is misleading" is in itself quite "vague ambiguous and misleading". Do you have any specific examples? Could you give so editors see what are you referring to (I for example have no clear idea). Finally regarding the "erroneous" above: erroneous is quite an strong word. If you feel that there are any errors in the article please point them out so we can correct them. This edit unsigned by Garrondo (talk at 12:55, 14 February 2011
At this juncture, I have suggested a strategy to make further improvements and to correct too many problems to list. I do not plan to watch this page. I am prioritising my edits to other parts of the wiki. I might pop back after 2 or 3 weeks, but that is not a promise. I hope that the small parts of the text that I have focused on by way of an examples will give insights in fixing the rest of the article. If you can not see problems yourself, then I presume that you must wait for more reviewers to help out. Snowman (talk) 14:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would be easier if it was you instead of others, but thanks anyway. I will take a look at your edits in the last few days to see if I can further improve the article following your examples and I promise to include specific info asked for below.--Garrondo (talk) 16:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have added links to captions of images.--Garrondo (talk) 16:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Regarding idiophatic PD: article is only reflecting a contradiction in sources: while PD is defined as an idiophatic parkinsonian syndrome nevertheless those parkinsonian syndromes which clinically are absolutely similar to PD and for which a genetic cause is acknowledged are also included in the definition of PD. For example Samii et al say: Parkinsonism describes a syndrome characterised by rigidity, tremor, and bradykinesia, of which previous termParkinson's diseasenext term is the main cause. previous termParkinson's diseasenext term is usually asymmetric and responsive to dopaminergic treatment, with no historical or examination clues to suggest a cause for symptoms. but later in the article Setting aside the few individuals with previous termParkinson's diseasenext term who have a known gene mutation or exposure to 1-methyl-4-phenyl-1,2,3,6-tetrahydropyridine (MPTP), the cause of this disorder is unknown. previous termParkinson's diseasenext term is probably a result of multiple factors acting together, including ageing, genetic susceptibility, and environmental exposures. Would you need more sources I will search for more, but I hope this is enough.--Garrondo (talk) 07:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with Looie on the use of paralysis agitans: a search in pubmed for the term yields 1000 items, and many use the term when talking about history, shaking palys gives 28 results, and finally parkinson's disease 38590. --Garrondo (talk) 07:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Too much jargon in lead: probably quite subjective: it would be great if you could point at specific sentences or even fix it yourself.--Garrondo (talk) 08:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Pathology: the article already gives info on the issue above what some general reviews in the disease give, so I also agree with Looie that place for that info is a sub-article. The article is already very long and I do not feel that we should give more detail in an already long section.--Garrondo (talk) 08:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is long, and I see a case for putting the history of the science of the subject in a separate article to make way for expansion. To me omitting "morbid pathology" here is like omitting "centre forward" from the "football" article. Snowman (talk) 12:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I will also try to include a few lines that better show how the disease starts, although emphasis in this 4 symptoms is present in most sources.--Garrondo (talk) 08:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • We already say that intellectual capacity is maintained in the early stages: Second line of the neuropsychiatric subsection A high proportion of people with PD will have mild cognitive impairment as the disease advances although cognitive disturbances can also occur in the initial stages of the disease in some cases.--Garrondo (talk) 08:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Festination: while the term did not appear it was defined in the motor symptoms section. I have included the term. Thanks for the catch.--Garrondo (talk) 08:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Numbered list item

Arbitrary break 2

Provisional impression (2). The addition of pallor to the substantia nigra has been added in the pathology section. The addition of the history of treatment of anticholinergic alkaloids is brief and shorter than I expected: Was the effect of atropine was an "accidental" finding? I see that some work has been done towards FA status. However, I found numerous issues remain in a few sections I looked at. I think that the article is not up to FA status. I expect that there are too many issues to list through out the article. This page is not on my watch list. Some examples of the issues I found in sections I looked at: Snowman (talk) 17:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A red tulip is a colour not a cultivar - I agree that passage is tricky to illustrate as it declares a red tulip is a symbol but the passage uses another red tulip. I am sure there are alot of red tulip cultivars....I'd be inclined to lose the image if not the cultivar intended. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see that Garrondo has removed the image. What would really be nice would be to have an SVG of one of the tulip cartoons that are used by a variety of PD organizations. Of course this raises all the usual licensing issues, so I don't think the FA should be held up for this reason -- but it would improve the article in the long run if a usable image could be found. Looie496 (talk) 20:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I guess, that it is not a problem for FA that there is no tulip image. Snowman (talk) 12:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is specific enough to PD to warrant expansion here - thickened fluids are used in people with strokes or other neurological conditions where gag reflex is compromised. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with Casliber. A brief mention is enough for the general article. Further details could be added to a secondary article but not here.--Garrondo (talk) 20:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I meant just a quick line with appropriate words to say that thickening fluids help because a more viscous fluid is more cohesive and less likely than ordinary drinks to "splash" and cause chocking when swallowing is uncoordinated. Dysphagia is jargon anyway, and could mean a physical blockage. Snowman (talk) 21:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Also explained gastrostomy.--Garrondo (talk) 22:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From OED, preventing is; "The action of precluding or stopping an anticipated act or event." It seems to me that "... both measures preventing choking." would be an over-inclusive statement here. Snowman (talk) 13:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to both measures reducing the risk of choking.--Garrondo (talk) 14:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inconsistency in the explanation of pesticides "most frequently replicated relationships" in the Epidemiology section and "Toxins that have been consistently related to the disease are certain pesticides," in the section. Need for the magnitude of the risks of pesticides and agent orange to be specified, and magnitude of the protective effect of smoking. Snowman (talk) 17:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I actually do not see any inconsistency. Both sentences say almost the same with different words. Nevertheless I will try to get specific numbers.--Garrondo (talk) 20:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the context in the two sections are different. Is there unnecessary and confusing duplication? Snowman (talk) 21:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please rephrase last comment. I did not follow you. It would also be important that you looked more carefully before asking for info. Article already said Toxins that have been consistently related to the disease are certain pesticides, such as rotenone or paraquat, and herbicides, with exposure increasing the risk by as much as a factor of two. On further reading of the section I have summarized it since agent orange is only another herbicide, with no more evidence than others and the statement on veterans does not really belong in this article.--Garrondo (talk) 22:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the relative risk of smokers versus non smokers as requested.--Garrondo (talk) 07:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually is probably almost impossible to say since studies on cost are quite variable on their results depending on country, model of research of the authors, population, etc. I'll take a look into the source tomorrow to see if the say anything more specific on the issue.--Garrondo (talk) 20:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In which case the article should reflect that situation better. Snowman (talk) 21:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Already in article without going into uneccesary detail. First sentence on costs already says: but difficult to calculate exactly due to methodological difficulties in research and differences between countries.--Garrondo (talk) 22:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The drive to find once daily drugs is true in all areas of medicine. Patches might be more specific but are still used and sought in a variety of conditions. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with Casliber: Main article is not the place to talk about ways of intaking medication. I believe that info on the chemicals used, without going to details or their different preparations is enough, specially since the section on treatments is already huge.--Garrondo (talk) 20:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See Treatment Options in the Modern Management of Parkinson Disease by Anthony H. V. Schapira, a review in Arch Neurol. 2007;64(8):1083-1088. Patches are already used in some countries, and a once daily drug seems imminent. There is a lot of details about research in the article, and I think that it is an omission to omit these advances. Snowman (talk) 21:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know they are already used. Info was formerly in main article, treatment section (since they are already used it is where it belongs), and moved at some point to the secondary article to summarize. I have brought it back per your request: levodopa subsection now says There are controlled release versions of Sinemet and Madopar in the form of patches that spread out the effect of the levodopa. Slow-release levodopa preparations have not shown an increased control of motor symptoms or motor complications when compared to immediate release preparations.--Garrondo (talk) 22:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed a mistake: transdermal patches are dopamine agonists and have shown their efficacy.--Garrondo (talk) 17:27, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 3

A comment to Snowmanradio and FAC delegates: Most comments from Snowmanradio up to now have been to say that the article lacks this or that piece of spezialized info. I agree with him (or her) that those pieces of info are both interesting and are not present in the article. However I disagree with him on that I do not feel that they should be here to this article be a FA article. FA criteria say that is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. and It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail . Parkinson's disease is a huge topic and there are actually more than 10000 reviews on it in pubmed, so it is clear that we cannot have every interesting info on the disease in the main article. When I wrote the article what I did was to look into general reviews on the disease, following them as a guide on what to include. Point is that many of these proposed additions to an already long article are barely or not mentioned at all in general reviews of the disease. My opinion is that best place for that kind of info is secondary articles and that we would be doing a bad favor to the general reader by including them. --Garrondo (talk) 20:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think that you are putting too much of the burden on the reviewers to provide lists of problems. I think I have been clear about the sort of problems that I see in the article. My priority is with other parts of the wiki, and I do not want to spend a lot of time here. I have added a small sample of the sort of problems still in the article below. Snowman (talk) 00:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The caption "Handwriting of a person affected by PD; showing micrographia in addition to other abnormal characteristics." This is a part sentence and should not end in a full stop. Other captions have this full stop MoS error. Also, "other abnormal characteristics." is rather vague. Please be clearer. Snowman (talk) 00:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Simply eliminated the latter part. More info can be obtained if going to the image description.--Garrondo (talk) 07:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The image description on commons helpfully gives the original text that was published with the image of the hand-writing, and there is no mention that the writing is small. Without a scale it is impossible to say if the writing is small or not. The "t" in Cahterine looks shorter than the "t" in the surname, so is the writing getting bigger? Presumably it is original research that this specimen of writing exhibits micrographia. I think you could say with certitude that the writing looks like it has been written with a shaky hand, and Charcot describes it at length. I think that the caption should include where the signature came from. There are hints for writing captions in the guidelines. Snowman (talk) 10:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First historical description of micrographia is posterior to the publishing of the image. Nevertheless one of the most characteristic characteristics of micrography is that writing gets smaller as the person writes. This is clearly seen in the image, since numbers at the right are much smaller than capital letters and numbers at the left. This is usually related to going upward in the sheet with writing which is also seen. Additionally other sign of micrographia is seen in that there is almost no space inside circles of letters such as "a" or "o" even if we do not have a scale. I would say it is more than sensible to say that it shows micrography, although it would be great to hear other people opinions. --Garrondo (talk) 11:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have just looked at the definition of micrographia in the OED, which gives; "Unusually small handwriting, often progressive over time, as a sign of various neurologic disorders, esp. Parkinson's disease." To me the size of the handwriting is unknown. To me the size of the handwriting is not small, and it certainly is not unusually small. I maintain that calling this handwriting micrographia is original research. Any tendency for the letter to become smaller is marginal and counterbalanced by "t" which becomes bigger. Snowman (talk) 11:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As a neuropsychologist I am quite sure of its micrographia, but as you say that is OR and if controverted I will not discuss over its inclusion. I have eliminated mention to micrographia. Just for curiosity: meaning of OED?--Garrondo (talk) 13:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The on-line version of OED, now wikilinked. Snowman (talk) 13:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It affects to a greater extent the most distal part of the limb, and at onset typically appears in only a single arm or leg, becoming bilateral later." There is nothing here about typical pill-rolling movements. To me this part if the article is written in a verbose vague style without mentioning a typical feature of the start of the illness. Snowman (talk) 00:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have expanded section to include pill-rolling and frequency of tremor.--Garrondo (talk) 08:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have expanded description of bradykinesia. --Garrondo (talk) 13:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rigidity is due to joint stiffness and increased muscle tone" : as far as I am aware the rigidity has little to do with stiffness within joints, at least in the early stages of the illness. The stiffness is because of muscle tone in the early stages of the disease. Perhaps, there are secondary changes in the joints later in the illness. I find that the phrasing in the article confusing. Snowman (talk) 00:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have fully rewritten the paragraph using further sources and expanding content. I hope it is clearer now.--Garrondo (talk) 10:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Snowman (talk) 11:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rigidity is due to joint stiffness and increased muscle tone, which combined with a resting tremor produce a ratchety, "cogwheel rigidity" when the limb is passively moved. I doubt if anyone who had not come across cogwheel rigidity would be able to understand cogwheel rigidity from the article. The wikilinked "cogwheel" in redirected to gear, and the word "cogwheel" does not appear in the "gear" article. I think cogwheel rigidity should be explained better as it is one of the basics of the illness. What has resting tremor got to do with cogwheel rigidity? I think that simplicity and clarity of language is needed here. Snowman (talk) 00:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done per above.--Garrondo (talk) 10:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have made amendments. Incidentally, it is easier to feel cogwheel rigidity than see it. Snowman (talk) 11:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article may be more focused with only a small section on the history of the science, and a longer separate article of the history of the science provided. Moot point perhaps. Snowman (talk)
  • I think that the history section is brief and in adequate and the topic does not have a main article. The discovery of the use of atropine in parkinsonism should really be expanded to give it a higher priority, and I would say that there are serious omissions here. Please re-think data organisation. Snowman (talk) 10:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a source to back up that atropine importance is underrepresented or is it just your opinion? We have several articles on history of the disease as sources and the only one that mentions disovery of atropine is "The history of movement disorders and says: "Belladona alkaloids were empirically identified as helpful in Parkinson's disease in the latter half of the 19th century. Charcot noted that the anticholinergic alkaloid hyoscyamine (the levorotatory form of atropine) was modestly beneficial for the tremor of Parkinson's disease, as reported in the doctoral thesis of his German student Ordenstein in 1867 (Foley, 2003). In 1887, Wilhelm Erb successfully introduced scopolamine (initially somewhat confusingly called “hyoscine”) (Foley, 2003). Similar preparations were used for generations with at best modest success. Synthetic centrally acting anticholinergic medications were introduced in the 1950s and were soon adopted because they were associated with fewer systemic side effects (Corbin, 1949 K.B. Corbin, Trihexyphenyl: evaluation of a new agent in the treatment of Parkinson's disease, JAMA 141 (1949), pp. 373–381.[Corbin, 1949] and [Dorshay and Constable, 1949])." I will try to get Foley 2003 (PMID 15641199) which is specifically on history of medications.--Garrondo (talk) 11:28, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is something I recall and your solid reply is beginning to cause me doubts on my recollections. I have stored away my older pharmacology books and they are not very accessible. The story I recall wrongly or rightly is that atropine-like drugs were given to geriatric patients to reduce drooling, and it was noticed by chance that parkinsonism symptoms improved. I think it was also used as an example of the chance discovery of drugs, which makes it more interesting. Please do not add this anywhere without a reference to a proper source. Snowman (talk) 12:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • On my screen there is one area where the text is between an image on the right and an image on the left. There is another area where there is a huge image on the right and a narrow column of text on the left. Image positioning needs attention. Snowman (talk) 00:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • With the variety of screens it is impossible to make everybody happy. The problem of having text between two images comes precisely from comment from another editor who asked to have images at right and left. Regarding huge image: it is a double image so if not that big it was difficult to see anything in it.--Garrondo (talk) 07:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that the guidelines say to avoid having text between images to the left and right. It is possible to clear the text from the left of the huge image. Web designers should consider a variety of users screens and browsers, and I see no excuse to be expedient here. Snowman (talk) 10:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the gait and tremor needs to be seen to be appreciated, and I think that this article should have links to good external resources, and I would call this a FA requirement here. I have not asked for external links in a review before, but I think this is an exception. External links are meant to guide readers to useful external resources and I think that this article is lacking without such helpful external links. Snowman (talk) 10:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have been searching for 40 minutes and I have not been able to find videos of symptoms in reliable sites (many of them on youtube, but hardly reliable). Only thing found is a comparison of a patient with DBS on and off. My reasoning is that reliable sites (NHS, NIH...)do not show PD symptoms videos so as not to scare recently diagnosed patients and their families. I have added the video to the external links section.--Garrondo (talk) 14:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose the reliability depends on the authors of the youtube videos. Snowman (talk) 19:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, but since 99 % there are home made or do not give any info on authorship and copyright is really hard to find anything useful.--Garrondo (talk) 19:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
European Parkinson's Disease Association has a set of videos. There is a link to one of these from the EPDA website, so I presume these will be OK to link. There might be more at other self-help organisations. Snowman (talk) 21:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I had alredy seen those in the EPDA site. No copyright problems with them. However most of them are interviews with patients, families and experts, and none of them show the symptoms of the disease which was what you initially asked for, and that is reason what I did not even mention them. I am not sure about the usefulness for the article.--Garrondo (talk) 07:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually: in the same youtube channel there are videos from a public Spanish television, which are copyrighted. Adding a link to the full collection of videos would breach WP policy on external links. I do not think adding the youtube channel is appropiate. --Garrondo (talk) 13:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After further searching I have found no appropiately licensed videos per WP:ELNO with images of patients symptoms. At this point I believe the proposal is hardly actionable.--Garrondo (talk) 07:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After even further searching I have added two videos showing symptoms in patients.--Garrondo (talk) 14:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, shaking and gait and so on is shown quite well, albeit with captions and in a foreign language. I think these are helpful. Snowman (talk) 20:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Just added to the "other" subsection.--Garrondo (talk) 07:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see that a brief line has been added to the "Other" section. I think that some of the changes that can occur prior to diagnoses could be called psychological or psychiatric, and would be relevant to the "Neuropsychiatry" section. Snowman (talk) 22:17, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a line saying that cognitive changes can also occur prior to diagnosis. Among all neuropsychiatric are the best known to begin early in the course of the disease.--Garrondo (talk) 13:17, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mohamed Ali's diagnosis is somewhat uncertain, I understand. The caption says "Muhammad Ali in 2006, 26 years after diagnosis". It does not say diagnosis of what. A reader quickly looking at the images on the page might think that he had Parkinson's disease. Need strict accuracy with autobiographical details, so I think his image should be removed from a page on Parkinson's disease. More than a week ago I pointed out that some captions had MoS issues with full stops at the end of part sentences, and I am puzzled why such MoS issues are still present in captions. I just removed the full-stop after at the end of the part sentence from this image. I still see other captions with MoS issues. Snowman (talk) 11:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Most sources say he has PD and he was diagnosed of PD. Text of article already says that some debate this diagnosis. I do not believe controversy should be included in image caption.--Garrondo (talk) 11:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was not clear on your meaning with full stops on images. I will eliminate them today (I suppose you only refer to last one in each image).
Done.--Garrondo (talk) 11:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It only applies to the end of part sentences. This could be the first sentence or the second sentence. It is all in the MoS, if you have any doubts. Snowman (talk) 11:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see you have done it wrong, and this makes me wonder if the editors of the page have read the guidelines or not. I indicated that it is all in guidelines on captions, so do you read up on it? "Presence of Lewy bodies in the brains of those with PD has led to the classification of the disease as a synucleinopathy." This is a full sentence and it needs a full stop. Snowman (talk) 11:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see the caption now reads; "Muhammad Ali in 2006, 26 years after diagnosis of Parkinson's disease". I would call this an over-simplification of the diagnostic issues related to a biography. Snowman (talk) 12:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed it to parkinsonism which is probable more adequate: from the source:It has now been 22 years, and quite possibly longer, since parkinsonism began its relentless march through Ali's nervous system. He was diagnosed with parkinsonism, the umbrella term for movement disorders including Parkinson's disease, in 1984, three years after the last fight of his 21-year boxing career. Now, the increasing tremors in his limbs, the painful slowness of his gait, the reports of balance problems and the whispers of falls have led the neurologist who diagnosed him to suspect Ali may in fact suffer from full-blown Parkinson's disease.: He was initially diagnosed of parkinsonism while degenation now indicates PD.--Garrondo (talk) 13:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The suspicions of the physician who you have quoted has not been treating M. Ali for a number of years, and it seems to me that he is going on what he has heard indirectly for recent information, which is not ideal for a reliable wiki source for information. I think it would probably be OK to use the part of the reference where he quoted his opinions based from when he was treating M. Ali. Snowman (talk) 13:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"... diagnosis of parkinsonism"; is parkinsonism a diagnosis? Snowman (talk) 13:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Editorial on the neurology now article (also used as source in article) says:To tell it as it's never been told, Wally interviewed Dr. Stanley Fahn - one of the world's leading Parkinson's experts, a past president of the American Academy of Neurology, and the specialist who diagnosed Ali 22 years ago. Having had the privilege of working with Dr. Fahn, I know firsthand that he has worked tirelessly to improve the quality of life for people with Parkinson's through his own research program, advocacy efforts and the outstanding clinical care he provides. Although he hasn't treated Muhammad Ali in a long time, Dr. Fahn's vast experience with Parkinson's patients gives him insight into Ali's current condition. Moreover "Neurology now" is as reliable as we can get a source for the society section so we are not the ones to debate over its content.--Garrondo (talk) 13:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While I believe that to say "diagnosis of parkinsonism" is correct as it it a syndrome I have changed caption to say "appearance of parkinonism".--Garrondo (talk) 13:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think people know what you mean by "diagnosis of parkinsonism", and on further consideration I think it is likely to be correct as it goes quite a long way in determining the nature of the disorder; although not an exact diagnosis. However, I would say it would be wrong to say "diagnosis of headache", since headache is a symptom. I think in an ivory tower of medicine you would probably get a shower of protestations if you said "diagnosis of parkinsonism". Snowman (talk) 14:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have had to amend your version of the caption, since with him the time of diagnosis and the time of first showing signs (the appearance of the disease) are years different. I have written a suggestion for the caption. Snowman (talk) 14:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your first edit of the caption. Regarding the second indicating place of photo I am not so sure. In this case info is completely irrelevant to article, and guidelines also say that captions should be succint. Since info on picture is in its description page in this case I would rather have it simpler.--Garrondo (talk) 15:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On second reading I really did not like info per reasoning above, so I reverted to your previous version.--Garrondo (talk) 15:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Snowman (talk) 16:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 4

  • "<!-- DO NOT ADD MORE LINKS TO THIS ARTICLE. WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A COLLECTION OF LINKS -->" The first sentence of this hidden notice in the text does not appear to me to be consistent with the principals of the wikipedia. Surely, anyone can add appropriate external links if they wanted to. Snowman (talk) 14:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree completely. Eliminated.--Garrondo (talk) 15:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pathophysiology is about abnormal physiological processes, so it seems illogical to me to have the heading "Physiology" as a subheading to "pathophysiology", because physiology is normal functioning. The word "Pathology" could mean "the study of disease" or it could mean "laboratory medicine", and I think that it is illogical to have this broad heading as a subheading to "Pathophysiology", which is a specific type of pathology. Snowman (talk) 23:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Intention was to make a difference between microscopy findings from functional knownledge of how the basal ganglia function and are altered in PD. We are not the only ones to make such distinction with same terms: The seminal book by Jankovic and Tolosa has a chapter entitled "Neurophisiology of motor control and movement disorders" (Ch 2), which would be similar to the first section, and another chapter entitled "Neuropathology of parkinsonian disorders" (ch. 22) which would be similar in content to the second section. While I understand your comment I am not sure of a better way to make such distinction. Any proposals would be of aid.--Garrondo (talk) 07:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A possibility would be to simply eliminate subheadings. What do you think? Any other ideas? --Garrondo (talk) 13:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since there was no response I was bold and eliminated subsection titles.--Garrondo (talk) 08:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It would probably have been slightly better to have started such a general discussion with a request for other ideas on the talk page. I think that the resulting heading is not appropriate and I have already indicated above why this is. Also, I think that the resulting section is probably too big. Snowman (talk) 10:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overall, it was quicker to fix this section myself. Snowman (talk) 20:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However the relationship between the two diseases is complex and still has to be clarified." and "Thus the two diseases, ..."; The section mentions three diseases; Alzheimer's, PD, and dementia with Lewy bodies. Snowman (talk) 21:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It referred to LBD. Broken paragraph into two for clarity.--Garrondo (talk) 08:19, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The part "Thus the two diseases, especially PD with dementia, may be considered parts of the same continuum." does not make sense to me. This is like saying two things are similar except for one of them. Snowman (talk) 14:44, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified to: Dementia with Lewy bodies is another synucleinopathy that has many similarities with PD. Thus dementia with Lewy bodies and Parkinson's disease may be considered parts of the same continuum, and this is even more clear for the subset of PD cases with dementia.--Garrondo (talk) 08:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All statistics I have found were country specific. That is reason why I did not add any to lead, but then another reviewer asked for more info, and I simply add that sentence as an example. I could re-eliminate it.--Garrondo (talk) 08:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Eliminated.--Garrondo (talk) 13:09, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Non-motor symptoms, which include autonomic dysfunction, cognitive and behavioral problems (neuropsychiatric), and sensory and sleep difficulties, are also common.[1]" This is the introduction to the "Signs and symptoms" section. As an introduction, I think it should include brief mention of mood and thought problems. Snowman (talk) 22:17, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely is what "cognitive and behavioral problems (neuropsychiatric)" refers to, just with another words.--Garrondo (talk) 08:19, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A mood problem (ie depression) is not a classified as a cognitive or a behavioural problem. A thought problem (ie delusion) is not classified as a cognitive or a behavioural problem. Snowman (talk) 14:49, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have reworded to: neuropsychiatric problems (mood, cognition, behavior or thought alterations),.--Garrondo (talk) 08:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Visuospatial difficulties are part of the disease, ...". To me this sounds like a psychological problem and not a psychiatric problems, and it seems out of place under a heading about "Neurophychiatry". What about alcoholism in PD? Snowman (talk) 14:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Visuospatial difficulties is a cognitive problem, not psychological, as it is problems with abstract reasoning or language. Similar to agnosia (although probably less specific). If we (as many sources do) include cognitive problems inside the greater umbrella of neuropsychiatric difficulties the section is its place.--Garrondo (talk)
Regarding alcoholism: not sure on what do you mean. If you ask why is it not mentioned: place would be neuropsychiatry section, close to the other compulsive behaviors, although I do not think it was mentioned in sources. --Garrondo (talk) 16:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to dry eyes.--Garrondo (talk) 16:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Individuals with PD may have problems with these cognitive processes." I think that there should be a better account of what problems of executive functions may occur, as the current text not translate to signs and symptoms without prior knowledge. Snowman (talk) 15:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are right: I will clarify later or tomorrow.--Garrondo (talk) 16:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see any changes. Snowman (talk) 11:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have made some changes, but it could be better. Snowman (talk) 20:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Neuropsychiatry" section there is a piece on "cognitive impairment" (translates to dementia) in the second paragraph and more about dementia in the third paragraph. Both pieces are about the rates and time of onset of dementia in PD, so I think that they could be incorporated together. Snowman (talk) 15:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It would make a huge paragraph and it can also lead to confusion since although related dementia and cognitive impairment are not the same. I would rather leave it as it is.--Garrondo (talk) 16:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I rephrase my point and say "cognitive impairment" is a vague tern and could mean almost anything, so can it be used less often and a specific term used instead where possible. Snowman (talk) 18:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seems less important now after copy-editing by various people. Snowman (talk) 20:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In terms of pathophysiology, PD is considered a ..."; the rest of this paragraph appears to me to be about histopathology and biochemistry. I do not see anything that would be wholly pathophysiology (ie abnormal physiology). Snowman (talk) 16:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overall, it was quicker to fix this myself. Snowman (talk) 20:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Diagnosis section already says: "On the other hand, diagnosis can be difficult when the symptoms are not fully typical of PD, since parkinsonism can occur due to a range of causes and the difference with PD may be subtle, particularly in the early stages when symptoms may be mild". --Garrondo (talk) 10:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did read that bit you quote carefully. A difficult diagnosis to make is not the same as uncertainty of the diagnosis. Also, the article does not go into dealing with uncertainty in the diagnosis. Snowman (talk) 10:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So what is the difference between the two terms? What is a difficult diagnosis? What is an uncertain diagnosis?...My opinion is simply that some sources prefer one use and others the other: Proof is that we have the NICE guideline in the article and you have brought another similar (although more condensed) scotish guideline. The Scotish one uses "uncertainty in diagnosis" the English one "difficulty". When reviewing more or less the same sources the word "uncertainty" does not appear in the whole NICE guideline related to diagnosis, while the opposite occurs for difficult in the Scotish guideline.--Garrondo (talk) 17:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NICE: "Given the error rate in making a diagnosis of PD, even in expert hands, it is apparent that the diagnosis should be kept under regular review." Snowman (talk) 19:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do not see your point: that line could be summarised as well with concept of uncertainty than difficulty of diagnosis.--Garrondo (talk) 07:24, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you can add this line using uncertainty or difficulty in the section, but with out this extra information, the sense of the uncertainty in diagnosis and the need to review diagnosis is missing. This is an omission. Snowman (talk) 11:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'I have added: 'Since differential diagnosis may be in some cases difficult patients may be followed and diagnosis re-evaluated and changed if evolution of symptoms is not in line with PD.'--Garrondo (talk) 13:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On diagnosis of depression: Case is similar to essential tremor below. We have many signs and symptoms and related conditions. in the main article. As there is a secondary article on symptoms in most cases symptoms are only name or briefly described. In no case we say how a specific symptom or comorbid condition is diagnosed. This is the perfect example of an interesting fact too much specific for the main article. I have added it to the secondary article. I believe that sources we have support my decision: Sami's and Davis' general reviews on the disease do not mention it. Neither does the Jankovic article which is centred on symptoms and differential diagnosis. Of the two clinical guidelines NICE guideline only says a line on page 114 (There are difficulties in diagnosing mild depression in people with PD as the clinical features of depression overlap with the motor features of PD.) and the Scotish guideline has a paragraph in page 15 (Accurate recognition, diagnosis and formulation of such disorders is vital, though the process is not straightforward because of the overlap between the cognitive and somatic symptoms of PD and those associated with depression. This may lead to inaccurate diagnosis with some patients with PD being misdiagnosed as depressed when symptoms are caused directly by the PD. In other patients a genuine mood disorder may be missed as symptoms of depression may be wrongly assumed to be caused by the underlying PD.) Taking into account weight given in the sum of these 5 sources main article is not its place.--Garrondo (talk) 14:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Probably too specific for the main article. I have added it the signs and symptoms subarticle, to the tremor paragraph.--Garrondo (talk) 13:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe sources support my decision: I have taken a look at four of our sources: Nice and scotish guidelines do not even mention it. Sami's lancet source, which has a full subsection between the differential diagnosis of PD and essential tremor neither mentions it. Only one to mention it is Jancovik which only says: "There are several clues to the diagnosis of existent essential tremor when it coexists with PD, including longstanding history of action tremor, family history of tremor, head and voice tremor, and no latency when arms are outstretched in a horizontal position in front of the body, although some patients may also have a re-emergent tremor related to their PD, tremulous handwriting and spiral, and improvement of the tremor with alcohol and beta-blockers--Garrondo (talk) 13:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Probably will not affect FA. Snowman (talk) 20:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seborrhoeic dermatitis is not in the source provided (at least I did not find it). Instead, a quick search found "seborrhoea" in the source. Unfortunately, the wikilink for seborrhoea goes to "seborrhoeic dermatitis", but it is two are not the same. Seborrhoea means oily skin and that is already listed, so I think you just need to remove "seborrhoeic dermatitis". Snowman (talk) 20:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. The wikilink confounded me.--Garrondo (talk) 08:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You should have checked the Seborrhoeic dermatitis article and looked it up somewhere else, which has no mention of seborrhoea. Snowman (talk) 20:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re File:Parkinson surgery.jpg, the "electrode in brain" image. I would like to see expansion of the image description on commons and the caption in the article, as I do not find much there to indicate what the image is about. Is there a burr hole? Is it a general anaesthetic? What is the equipment called? What is happening in the photograph? Where are the surgeons and theatre staff? It might be worth contacting the author. The current caption says; "Placement of an electrode, to be deep-seated in the brain"; however, I have looked at the image at high resolution, and I do not see anything placed in the brain, although something might be about to be put in the brain or something might have been put in the brain earlier. If necessary, see tips on writing a caption in the wiki guidelines. Snowman (talk) 21:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have taken a look at the user that uploaded the image at commons: the image was uploaded in 2005, was the only contribution of the user, has no edited talk or user page at commons and does not have a user page in English Wikipedia. We will have to assume that we are not going to get any extra info. Since an image of neurosurgical operation is not easy to get; much less specifically of implantation of a DBS I would rather have this image in the article even if the image would be improved with further info.--Garrondo (talk) 15:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pending. I think that the documentation of this image is inadequate. Suggest try asking at user page on commons. Snowman (talk) 20:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section "Surgery and deep brain stimulation" should separate destructive surgery with electrode implantation. Presumably, the old surgery was cutting into pathways or nerve centres. I do not know much about this topic; however, the wikilink for "pallidotomy" indicates that this is destructive (a hot electrode is used to obliterate parts of the brain) and looks wrongly placed. I think that the section is fatally flawed. Snowman (talk) 22:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The study of the microscopic anatomy of the affected tissues (histology) ..."; Gives wrong impression. The study of diseased tissues is called "histopathology". The line is clunky as well. Snowman (talk) 22:38, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... is unusual before the age of 40 years"; I added this to the introduction some time ago, sourced from Davidson's Principles and Practice of Medicine. I have just noticed, that this fact is not referenced in the article. Please source something like this from one of the reviews and include it in the main body of the article. Snowman (talk) 00:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Epidemiology section says: The mean age of onset is around 60 years, although 5–10% of cases, classified as young onset, begin between the ages of 20 and 50: I believe it is close enough.--Garrondo (talk) 08:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And of course it is referenced (to Sami et al).--Garrondo (talk) 13:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pending: Probably not common knowledge, so I expect this would need a specific reference. Regret my textbook is older than five years, so not ideal for a reference. Snowman (talk) 20:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I doubt that levodopa is copyrighted. Anybody could probably manufacture it in their garage and would not be illegal. Probably not even self consumption for their PD would be illegal. On the other hand selling it would be illegal in most countries (I am not sure even if in all countries).--Garrondo (talk) 14:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: I have removed the new image. I see no reason for prioritising this preparation in particular by showing a photograph of the tablets. Whey should this preparation have emphasis above the others? Snowman (talk) 12:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I ask why not: it is as representative as any of the others and since we can not have all of them we have to choose a prototype. Why do we have the structure of GNDF and not other chemicals? A PET image instead of an fmri? An specific PET image made with an ECAT Exact HR+ PET Scanner and not other machines by other enterprises? an image of Ali instead of others mentioned in the article? If we had Fox would you eliminate him since we were favoring his foundation? Why do we have an image of the US army using agent orange instead of other country also using it? Arent we being anti-american accusing that country of using dangerous weapons? I have reverted your elimination.--Garrondo (talk) 13:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that one drug should not be picked by showing an image, because it gives that one brand too much emphasis. It is a branded drug, it is not generic. We can go on to talk about the selection of the other images. Image removed again by me. Snowman (talk) 17:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Place for that kind of specific subjective individual point is NOT a FAC but the talk page.unsigned edit by Garrondo (talk) 18:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, the drug has a role. However, this branded combination is not the most widely used drug in PD. It is not the first choice by most in the early stages of the disease. It is not the cheapest. All these comments are objective. I think that this product placement is actionable and is very relevant in this discussion. Snowman (talk) 18:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Garrondo, could you state what goal you are hoping to meet by mentioning a specific drug? I do see the value of showing an example of the type of medicine that is actually prescribed. Stalevo gets some credit for having been reviewed in clinical trials, but I can see the argument that another combination could be equally worthy of mention. Is there anywhere we can get data on what medicines are prescribed most frequently? Even if it was just from a specific hospital, or textbook, that said 'pick this drug combination first for a standard PD case.' EdJohnston (talk) 18:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The drug treatment is tailored to the individual patient, so there is no one particular recommended starting drug. The BNF says that the drug combination in the image is useful in end of dose motor fluctuations when not adequately controlled with levodopa and dopa-decarboxilase inhibitors. Snowman (talk) 19:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do not really care on which image to use. Stalevo is used in PD and my only point is that it is better than no image and as valid as an image as any other of another drug.--Garrondo (talk) 19:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that it would be better not to select one drug to show unless it was the most popular one used, or the first used, and so on. The image I removed was a tipple drug combination formulation, and the I think that the brand placement was inappropriate. Snowman (talk) 23:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeap, you have given your opinion several times, as have I. That does not make it more or less truth or more or less consensus. From my point of view both reasonings (image should be only the used or any drug used in clinical practic) are valid. Nevertheless I am so tired of only hearing you and me in this discussion that you can have it your way.--Garrondo (talk) 07:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have not heard any reasoned argument to select the triple combination preparation. Your stated view; "I do not really care on which image to use" is not convincing to me. Incidentally, there were three contributors to this thread of the discussion on this image. Snowman (talk) 11:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That it is a medication specific for PD was reason enough for me, but as I said I would rather not further discuss the issue.--Garrondo (talk) 12:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I conclude that the issue is settled and that the image is removed. Snowman (talk) 20:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree and this, similarly to the above is a very subjective, specific, individual opinion which would be best discussed out of the FAC, hearing other people's opinion.unsigned edit by Garrondo (talk) 18:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC) Moreover: the reference we have is specific to the use by the US of agent Orange during the vietnam war and its effects is veterans (although it primary articles it is based on are not specific to veterans.)--Garrondo (talk) 18:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the role of helicopter in war using defoliants is controversial and I think that there is no need to highlight this with an image. I think that this image needs proper context and it out of place on this page. I think it should be removed Snowman (talk) 18:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
role of helicopter in war is of not relevancy for this article. Your opinion or any others on the use of any kind of weapons is not a valid reason to eliminate an image. Fact is that agent orange, and its use by US army, has been related to PD by a US government agency. Therefore image is most surely a valid one. Nevertheless I have to point again that such kind of debatable and subjetive proposals is for talk page and not for FACthis edit unsigned by Garrondo (talk) 19:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC) [reply]
Surely, an inappropriate image can be discussed here. My remarks about the helicopter are actionable and belong in this discussion. Snowman (talk) 23:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would rather hear other opinions of others and if I have time I will begin a thread in talk page since it is quite subjective issue and you are me are only two people giving their subjective opinion both with partly valid reasons. Nevertheless I reiterate: the role of helicopter in war using defoliants is controversial is a reason of no relevancy for the Parkinson's disease article, and we do have a secondary high quality recent source specifically centre among other things in use of defoliants by US army soldiers. Per such source the image is a valid one. --Garrondo (talk) 07:24, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus would most likely minimise subjective ideas. Would make good point for discussion on the article talk page. In the absence of a consensus here may not affect FA. Snowman (talk) 20:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since it is made with the specific neurotracer used to diagnose PD shows very well how basal ganglia look in a healthy subject.--Garrondo (talk) 18:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
... But there is not another to show the abnormal findings in PD, so surely it is as pointless as showing a man walking normally or a normal elbow. Snowman (talk) 18:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Most people know how is normal walking. Most do not know how a PET does. I believe it is useful, you believe it is not. I have stated my reasons you have stated yours. Feel free to start a discussion on talk page of the article to seek opinions by others or bring better image. --Garrondo (talk) 19:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am looking to reduce page bulk. I think that the best image would be a photograph of a cross section of the brain stem showing a cut surface that shows the substantia nigra. Snowman (talk) 17:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked many times for good free images in the last year and found none. Feel free to bring one better if you find it.--Garrondo (talk) 08:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus may be formed on article talk page, if discussion started there. May not influence FA. Snowman (talk) 20:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The branded formulations of drugs mentioned on the page are only a few of the possible list. I would recommend the removred of branded drug names from the article. Snowman (talk) 19:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is there somewhere in MEDMOS or MOS that says that unless all brand names are named none should appear or is it again a subjective opinion?--Garrondo (talk) 20:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought: info is on articles wikilinked and might be a way of reducing a bit the article.--Garrondo (talk) 20:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Garrondo (talk) 20:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Several is quite vague. In my opinion only short paragraph as of today is the one on motor signs and symptoms, which I plan to expand as soon as I can. At the begining of some sections there are also some sentences that summarize or introduce the section, but which due to their function I would rather leave as they are.--Garrondo (talk) 12:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is one paragraph consisting of one sentence; see Wikipedia:Writing_better_articles#Paragraphs. Snowman (talk) 17:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have just expanded it.--Garrondo (talk) 11:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While probably a good exception to that guideline (as an historical image trying to serve as image for the concept of first seminal description) changed to Charcot image.--Garrondo (talk) 08:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus may be gained on discussion on article talk page. In the absence of a consensus here, it may not affect FA. Snowman (talk) 20:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... abnormalities in ocular pursuit and saccadic movements, and difficulties in directing gaze upward."; jargon. Websites mention blurred vision and double vision, but no mention in article. Snowman (talk) 16:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Websites are NOT reliable sources, Jankovic is. Additionally our article says "such as" which means "some examples but not all problems are named". Regarding ocular pursuit I feel is easy enough to understand. Regarding saccades: clarified.--Garrondo (talk) 08:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pending: The webpage was a PD society leaflet, and I have no reason to question it. Snowman (talk) 20:17, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these issues are open to discussion, but I think others should be copy-edited in the normal course of ironing out problems from this article, without someone having to prompt at every problem. It has not taken me long to find another list of problems, and a bit longer to write a short list as examples. I reiterate that the article needs more careful copy-editing to reduce vagueness, reduce inadvertent ambiguities, and illuminate misleading or erroneous text. I would anticipate that the article needs a lot of work and that it will take quite a long time to reach FA. I would anticipate that most of these problems should be ironed out without needing a prompt at every issue. If there are no editors that can further copy-edit and enhance the prose then the article is not going to reach FA in my opinion. This page is not on my watch list I am not planing to participate in a prolonged dialogue. I am prioritising my edits to other parts of the wiki. I might pop back occasionally or after 1 to 2 weeks, but that is not a promise. Snowman (talk) 00:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On images to Snowmanradio:

  • On full stops on captions: After checking MOS I have found point you referred to and tried to fix article. I hope it is correct now.--Garrondo (talk) 15:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Following your recommendation I have expanded caption in micrographia image adding place and date of publication.

Arbitrary break 5

  • Support—Thank you for addressing my concerns.—RJH (talk) 17:38, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment—For the most part it looks FA ready, albeit a long read replete with jargon. Still, it's interesting material. There are a few points that I would appreciate if you could fix before I lend my support:
    • "Clinical evaluation is based in similar tasks consisting such as alternating movements between both hands or feet." This sentence doesn't quite make sense. What is "similar tasks consisting"? Does "...alternating movements between both hands or feet" mean "between both hands or both feet" or does it mean "alternating movements between both hands and feet"?
Former, that is why I used or instead of and.--Garrondo (talk) 08:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Other motor symptoms include ... are examples of the range of common motor problems..." Please fix the redundancy.
Done.--Garrondo (talk) 08:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "...while the cost per individual per year in the US..." Is this individual patient or the total population?
i will take a look at ref and clarify. I would say that the former.--Garrondo (talk) 08:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was per patient. Clarified in article.--Garrondo (talk) 11:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 6

  • Comments by Sasata (talk) 04:57, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have the time for an exhaustive review of the entire article, so instead I focussed my efforts on one section, "Research directions". This analysis leaves me with the feeling that the article still needs some polish to bring it up to FA standards.
  • The section begins by listing the "two key questions" that PD research is trying to answer. The closest following citation does not frame or summarize PD research in this way, so I'm wondering if there's a citation missing here.
I have simply eliminated the mentioned sentences.--Garrondo (talk) 08:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "How might those cells be replaced or their loss compensated for?" The "for" at the end of the sentence is awkward; is any meaning changed by just omitting the word?
As eliminated no further an issue.--Garrondo (talk) 08:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Currently active research directions include the search of new animal models of the disease" Shouldn't that be "search for new animal models" ?
Changed.--Garrondo (talk) 08:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't see gene therapy linked earlier, isn't that bluelink-worthy?
Done
  • "However, the tragedy of a group of drug addicts in California in the early 1980s" is "tragedy" WP:NPOV?
I have reworded the sentence... however since they got parkinsonian symptoms for life it was probably quite neutral to say it was a tragedy.--Garrondo (talk) 08:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Gene therapy is currently under investigation." This is a weak lead sentence to start a subsection, imho. Sounds like it's being suspected of committing a crime.
I would have never thought of it. Eliminated and reworded. Additionally it was quite redundant in a section entitled research directions.
  • Isn't "clinical trial" bluelink worthy, especially in a section called "Research directions"?
It was precisely the copy edit of another reviewer in FAC which eliminated it given as reason overlinking. I really do not care one way or another.--Garrondo (talk) 08:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The gene used leads to the production of an enzyme which helps to manage PD symptoms or protects the brain from further damage." That really leaves me hanging… not even a mention of what enzyme it is?
Well, that is the general method, there is not ONE enzyme, but several under investigation and anyway I would say that is very specialized content. --Garrondo (talk) 08:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However none of them has been conclusively demonstrated to reduce degeneration." "However" at the beginning of the sentence should be followed by a comma; since the subject is "several molecules", shouldn't the underlined "has" be "have"? (Same question regarding the GDNF image caption)
Done.--Garrondo (talk) 08:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "… the best constructed studies up to date indicate …" Is the easter-egg link appropriate (rather than just explicitly stating double-blind, placebo-controlled)? Should "up to date" really be "to date"?
Quite subjetive point. I myself believe that it is precisely an appropiate way to avoid some jargon.
Easter egg links are not in line with guidelines. Snowman (talk) 14:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Removed then.--Garrondo (talk) 11:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • rodent is overlinked (i.e., twice) in the section
Delinked rodent and monkey.--Garrondo (talk) 08:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nevertheless use of fetal stem cells is controversial." Like "however", "nevertheless" starting a sentence needs a comma immediately following it.
Checked and fixed full article. Thanks.--Garrondo (talk) 08:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The references need to be swept through with a fine-tooth comb, e.g.:
  • the formatting of journal titles is not consistent in that the abbreviated titles do not always have fullstops (eg., #9 "Parkinsonism Relat. Disord." vs. #10 "Parkinsonism Relat Disord")
Added full stops and other fixes to refs.--Garrondo (talk) 09:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref #6 has the page range in the format "508-512" (note the incorrect hyphen), which is not the same as the others; also #16, #28, etc.
Fixed ref 6, however hyphens for pages in 16 and 28 are correct. Are you referring to the isbn number? Does it also have to be hyphenated.--Garrondo (talk) 09:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, the page range format is inconsistent: all three pages are given for starting and ending pages, compared to others which have only the final two pages given. Sasata (talk) 16:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ahhhh, Ok, I had not even noticed. Fixed all over article (I think). Is the problem of manually formatting :-) .--Garrondo (talk) 08:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • have to be consistent in giving states for US cites (e.g. #3 "Hagerstwon, MD:" (note typo) vs. #6 "Totowa:") Fixed by EdJohnston 17:01, 28-Feb-2011.
I am not American and I have no idea on how to do it. If Totowa is the only case it would be of help if you did it. thanks.--Garrondo (talk) 09:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not American either, but I think "Hagerstwon" is a misspelling of "Hagerstown". Sasata (talk) 16:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • why is ref #24 (Bronstein et al. 2010) in title case?
No idea since I always copy and paste from diberris tool. Fixed.--Garrondo (talk) 09:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To Sasata, at the top of your list it says that this is a list of problems from one section. I presume that your list is a set examples found in section and that you are suggesting that similar problems could exist throughout the page? Snowman (talk) 17:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is correct. If I find more time I'll go through another section and give more examples, but based on what I've read in the one section (& scanning the refs), some more work is needed to make this one of Wikipedia's best medical articles. Sasata (talk) 17:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I notice that some editors above have complained about jargon. For a sample of good clarity and avoidance of jargon take a look at a capsule summary of PD in a document from the Royal College of Physicians (Preface):
…the management of Parkinson’s disease must take into account the fact that the mainstay of pharmacological treatment, levodopa, can eventually produce dyskinesia and motor fluctuation. Furthermore, there are a number of agents besides levodopa that can help parkinsonian symptoms, and there is the enticing but unconfirmed prospect that other treatments might protect against worsening neurological disability. Thus, a considerable degree of judgement is required in tailoring individual therapy and in timing treatment initiation...
PD is a progressive neurodegenerative condition resulting from the death of the dopamine containing cells of the substantia nigra. There is no consistently reliable test that can distinguish PD from other conditions that have similar clinical presentations. The diagnosis is primarily a clinical one based on the history and examination. People with PD classically present with the symptoms and signs associated with parkinsonism, namely hypokinesia (ie poverty of movement), bradykinesia (ie slowness of movement), rigidity and rest tremor.
Parkinsonism can also be caused by drugs and less common conditions such as: multiple cerebral infarction, and degenerative conditions such as progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP) and multiple system atrophy (MSA).
Although PD is predominantly a movement disorder, other impairments frequently develop, including psychiatric problems such as depression and dementia. Autonomic disturbances and pain may later ensue, and the condition progresses to cause significant disability and handicap with impaired quality of life for the affected person.
Pushing even more technical terms out of the lead is something to consider. It is of interest that the Royal College of Physicians manages to condense the material now in the third paragraph of our lead into just three sentences (those in the first paragraph of the above small-print excerpt).
The following text in our current lead could surely be moved elsewhere, or made shorter:

The main symptoms are collectively called parkinsonism, or sometimes a "parkinsonian syndrome". They can arise from a variety of causes. Parkinson's disease is often defined as a Parkinsonian syndrome that is idiopathic (has no known cause), although some atypical cases have a genetic origin.

This has the flavor of 'bookkeeping' on the disease definition, and may not register any meaning at all for a lay person. The second sentence has the air of a contradiction (idiopathic but also of genetic origin). The subtle boundaries of parkinsonism vs PD could surely be moved later in the article (or only vaguely addressed in the lead), and I see some people are already objecting to 'idiopathic.' That is the kind of word that ought to be pushed into the fine print lower down, if at all possible. EdJohnston (talk) 06:52, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it might make sense to move that material out of the lead. The confusion about idiopathic versus genetic, though, is simply a reflection of confusion in the literature. If PD is defined as idiopathic, then the consequence is that as soon as we know what caused any given case of parkinsonism, it isn't PD! Therefore PD becomes mysterious by definition, which is ridiculous. The definition of PD as idiopathic was really meant to exclude parkinsonism caused by certain identifiable forms of damage, not to define PD out of existence as soon as all cases are understood. Looie496 (talk) 18:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The usual maximum number of headings in the introduction is four, with five being used in exceptional circumstances. Can the introduction be formed from four paragraphs here, or is this article one of the exceptions? This long introduction could indicate that the article is too long. Perhaps, the history sections of this article could be substantially shortened and a better expanded main page on the history of the science of the disease could be created. Snowman (talk) 10:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you referring to the number of paragraphs in lead? It is right now 4 paragraphs so I am not sure to understand your comment...--Garrondo (talk) 11:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is four now. There used to be five. Snowman (talk) 14:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly relevant for the FAC, but I have checked 1 version each day along the whole FAC and there has not been 5 paragraphs at any point (although it may have been at some intermediate version in a single day...).--Garrondo (talk) 14:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake with number of paragraphs. I presume I counted wrong by loosing visual reference points with scrolling up and down unevenly. Snowman (talk) 15:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To Ed: Less is not always better. In my opinion our third paragraph is more informative than those in the guideline. That certainly has some advantages: if somebody only reads the lead (which many people do) at least they will have some idea on the fact that there are several possible treatments for the disease and its symptoms, which would hardly occur with the introduction of the NICE guideline. Regarding mention of parkinsonism vs PD: I would leave it. The lead is expected to summarize the whole article and if we want "classification" to be included in the lead the difference between the two has to be included. Nevertheless I am open to any proposals.--Garrondo (talk) 14:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, Ed is User EdJohnston. His last edit is several lines above. Snowman (talk) 16:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to PD including genetic causes (at the top of this section). It does seem paradoxical that genetic cases are included with the "idiopathic disease" PD, but it does seem to be the case, as seen in SIGN guidelines. I think that every attempt should be made to explain this paradox of terminology in simple and clear English. It is probably easy to see why it could look silly to some (although it is correct), if it is badly explained on the wiki. Perhaps, explanation of the atypical presentations of genetic cases could also be added for clarification. Snowman (talk) 21:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To Snowmanradio: I have created a history subarticle and summarized in main page.--Garrondo (talk) 15:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 7

  • Request: This page is getting nearly impossible for me to read, particularly in trying to determine what feedback has been resolved, what feedback is in-work, or what feedback has been left at an impasse. To those of you who have left feedback at length, would you be willing to move sections of addressed feedback to the talk page, or possibly strike it out? --Andy Walsh (talk) 16:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Resolved issues should have a strike through. It would be even more confusing, if relevant parts of this FAR were removed to the article talk page, hence I think that nothing about resolved issues should be removed from this page. Snowman (talk) 16:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have just looked at every comment I have made on this page and put a strike to the resolved issues. Incidentally, I have been minimising my feedback and just choosing examples from a few sections. Snowman (talk) 17:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provisional impression (3): I do not know when time will be called on this review. I am still finding problems in the article almost everywhere I look. I would like to prioritise my edits to other parts of the wiki. I might be presumptive and I might be wrong, but it seems to me that most of the progress has been directly in response to reviewers comments, and it seems to me that this is going reasonably well. I hope that the whole of the article is brought up to standard by careful copy-editing over the next few weeks or before the review is closed, and I would like to see more proactive copy-editing that would reduce the work load on reviewers. As a medical article, rather than a general science article, it should be particularly well written; see MedMoS. My view is that a medical topic includes basics that have to be included and correctly emphasised. Snowman (talk) 00:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The abbreviation 'LB' for Lewy Bodies is only used three times. It would be clearer if we drop the abbreviation and spell it out in every case.
Done.--Garrondo (talk) 07:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The link from the Infobox to the GeneReviews book does not work, and I couldn't fix it. It should go to http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK1223. The book is entitled 'Parkinson Disease Overview.' There seems to be some trick with how that template is coded. The template works fine in the Autism article.
No idea on how templates work, nor where to find help to fix it.--Garrondo (talk) 08:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • JFW commented above on File:Basal ganglia circuits.svg, suggesting that 'some of the layers moved about when the images were converted to PNG format'. I suspect that the image is not broken, but I don't think it has any expository value here. My vote would be to drop it from the article. Certainly the article text does not try to explain any of the terms introduced in the figure or in its caption. Too much detail for this level of narrative, and it does little to help the reader understand the mechanism of PD. What we should get across to the reader is: Cell death in the substantia nigra through unknown process, causing not enough dopamine, causing not enough disinhibition of the motor neurons. This makes initiating movement harder. (We basically say this in the third paragraph of Pathophysiology).
I agree that the image is probably too specialized for the level of detail of the article. I have eliminated it and the related one in the levodopa section.--Garrondo (talk) 07:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • To deal with the paradox that idiopathic Parkinson's could have a genetic cause, how about trying to say 'primary Parkinson's' wherever we can, instead of 'idiopathic Parkinson's'. The ICD-10 seems to treat the two terms (primary and idiopathic) as almost synonymous. It would not be puzzling if primary Parkinson's ultimately turns out to have a genetic cause. EdJohnston (talk) 01:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See discussion below.--Garrondo (talk) 08:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I struck the GeneReviews issue since I was able to locate the document code and fix the link. Also struck out two other items that were fixed by Garrondo. EdJohnston (talk) 15:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On "idiopathic parkinsonism"

Since discussion on the correcteness-uncorrectness according to sources and clearness-unclearness of explanation on article of the issue of PD being defined as primary and idiopathic, with the addition of genetic forms, has been commented by several reviewers backs and forwards in their opinions it might be a good idea the centralize discussion in this subsection. It might be even better if reviewers cut and pasted their comments in this specific issue and moved them here.--Garrondo (talk) 08:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the moment I have tried to clarify the situation in the classification section: right now article reads like this: Parkinson's disease is the most common form of parkinsonism and is usually defined as "primary" parkinsonism, meaning parkinsonism with no external identifiable cause.[2][3] In recent years several genes that are directly related to some cases of Parkinson's disease have been discovered. As much as this can go against the definition of Parkinson's disease as idiopathic, genetic parkinsonisms with a similar clinical course to PD are generally considered true cases of Parkinson's disease. Changes include addition of the word "external" to give more importance to the "secondary" term, and the addition of the last sentence specifically stating problems with the definition. Comments and ce would be greatly appreciated.--Garrondo (talk) 08:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New lead (addressing 'idiopathic')

Please see User:EdJohnston/Sandbox, a proposed draft for the article lead, which (in my opinion) helps to deal with the 'idiopathic' problem. It also tries to fix three things that bothered me about the existing lead:

  1. The opening section was trying too hard to cover all the bases, making it unclear whether it was describing a well-defined disease entity
  2. The real test for the disease is the presence of Lewy Bodies. They can only be checked for post mortem
  3. None of the therapies can reverse the effects of the disease or cure it. They are just a way to address the symptoms. (This point is made in the sub-article Treatment of Parkinson's disease), but was not stated in the main article.)

Please look at this proposed lead and see what you think. EdJohnston (talk) 14:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds great to me.--Garrondo (talk) 16:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reply. A further sentence I am hoping to put in the lead is some form of this capsule of PD: Cell death in the substantia nigra through unknown process, causing not enough dopamine, causing not enough disinhibition of the motor neurons. This makes initiating movement harder. (This would be reworded properly and would be checked against the references before being added). EdJohnston (talk) 17:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't agree that the revision is an improvement -- I think that naive readers will find it much more confusing. I don't believe that there is any way of briefly explaining the distinction between PD and parkinsonism that readers won't find confusing -- even professionals in the field are often confused by it. The best course of action, therefore, is to keep the explanation in the lead short, and make sure that it does not spread confusion to other aspects of the lead. Looie496 (talk) 19:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sporadic Parkinson's disease

Our article uses the term 'sporadic PD' but does not define it or provide a link to any other article. There is a book by Braak and Tredici, called "Neuroanatomy and Pathology of Sporadic Parkinson's Disease", which appears to use 'sporadic PD' as though it were a synonym for primary (or idiopathic) PD. Should we add 'sporadic PD' in the lead as yet another synonym? EdJohnston (talk) 17:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those are a good points. Snowman (talk) 23:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sporadic PD is the opposite to familial PD, so it is closely related to idiopathic-primary.--Garrondo (talk) 07:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have added "The terms "familial Parkinson's disease" and sporadic Parkinson's disease" can be used to differentiate genetic from truly idiopathic forms of the disease. to the classification section.--Garrondo (talk) 11:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional impression (4): I have had a close look and edited one of the sections namely the diagnosis section, and I found that the readability problems there were dense. Essentially, I think that the original diagnosis section required re-writing with odd parts being checked against sources, and that work on that section is not completed. Unfortunately, I think that this is representative of many parts of the article. I understand that another reviewer, who is busy, has provided adequate evidence that he would also be able to find multiple problems throughout the article. My overall impression of the whole a article is that it is not up to the standard of an FA article, and that a considerable amount of work is needed to bring it to that standard. My impression is that throughout the article medical terminology is often used not-quite correctly and sometimes medical terminology and phrases in sources appear to have been misunderstood slightly and a slightly distorted from may appear in the article. It would be good if all this could be corrected during this review, but I think that this article it heading towards failing FA status. I think it will need to mature for at least three months and probably longer before returning for another FA assessment. Snowman (talk) 20:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you mention a sentence in the Diagnosis section that you are not happy about? Your comment implies that the section contains factual errors. Who is the other reviewer that you cite? We can only work on what we know about. I would fix the style in many places if I thought others would accept my changes. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 22:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please make some edits. Snowman (talk) 23:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find the problems dense and there are many issues, so I edited the diagnosis section directly as a quicker way to illustrate problems with the article than making lists here, but this is only apparent if the sequence edits are analysed. I have changed the following line amongst others that I thought had the wrong and a misleading emphasis, I have changed the article from "Common presentations of the disease are usually easily diagnosed." to "PD is generally easy to diagnose when there are many easily recognisable signs and symptoms of PD.". The in-line reference said; "Although the diagnosis of PD is straightforward when patients have a classical presentation, ...". Snowman (talk) 23:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • See other reviews comments above. With this edit I asked him; "I presume that your list is a set examples found in section and that you are suggesting that similar problems could exist throughout the page?", and he replied with this edit which was his last edit on this page. Snowman (talk) 23:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to being quite a tendentious question "could exist" is not the same as "he would be able to find". --Garrondo (talk) 08:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I asked this for clarification after seeing Sasata's earlier edit. Snowman (talk) 19:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My own opinion as an answer to Snomanradio's comments: Snowmanradio has stated several times that he sees many problems. He has stated that in his opinion the article is not up to FA standard and he seems determined to get the article failed. While I respect him as an editor at the very least it seems paradoxical that many other expert editors in the medical field and FAC have not seen those "many" problems. As of today Looie496, JFW, DrKierman, Leevanjackson, Graham Colm, Casliber, Tony1, and RJH have stated their support and Sasata, Axl and EdJohnston reviewed several sections and made what I think were constructive minor comments mainly on language issues but certainly did not oppose the article. Moreover Snowmanradio has said that there are many errors when following sources and last time he says that he has taken a close look to the diagnosis section and edited it to show what the example of mistakes he has found. I have taken a close look to the edits Snowmanradio made to diagnosis: See differences between his two versions here.

  • He has precisely stated that I have changed the article from "Common presentations of the disease are usually easily diagnosed." to "PD is generally easy to diagnose when there are many easily recognisable signs and symptoms of PD.". The in-line reference said; "Although the diagnosis of PD is straightforward when patients have a classical presentation, ...". Regarding content I do not see any better following of the source in his version to the one of the article: Classical, ie normal, ie typical, ie with easyly recognisable signs and symptoms, ie.as many others as language can produce are generally easy to diagnose. Non-classical, ie non normal, ie non typical, ie with non easily recognisalbe signs and symptoms are not easily diagnosed. Moreover: regarding style Snowmanradio sentence is poor with two "easy" in a single sentence. This edit by Garrondo (talk) 08:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is with some sadness that I reply indicating your misunderstanding. Classical tends to mean an obvious text-book presentation; for example, a presentation showing a set of easily recognisable florid symptoms. An appendicitis can present with the classical symptoms, but I this is not the same as the common mode of presentation. Snowman (talk) 12:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They are actually classical because they are the most common, following your example I am sure that classical presentation is of appendicitis is also the most common with a big difference to the others, so it would be the same to say the "common presentation of appendicitis" than the "classical presentation". Nevertheless in this case I am not saying that your proposal is wrong or that I do not like the word classical, simply that what you point as "huge problems that may embarrass the wiki" may not be so.--Garrondo (talk) 13:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that saying "classical presentation" implies a presentation with symptoms and signs that are commonly found in the disease and when they are florid enough to be easily recognisable. Common symptoms can start years before diagnosis is considered or possible. Snowman (talk) 19:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Further discussion of an already accepted issue is completely useless.--Garrondo (talk) 08:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am please that you now appear to be able to see the original problem. Snowman (talk) 20:17, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changes to first and differential diagnosis paragraphs are in my opinion minor and only expression related. I am sure he prefers his version. I am not so sure that everybody would think it is better. I am sure they are not reason enough to say that article is clearly months far from being a FA. This edit by Garrondo (talk) 08:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I changed it because of the original line "Differential diagnosis requires distinguishing PD from other kinds of tremors and other causes of parkinsonism.". I think that "Differential diagnosis" was used incorrectly and was certainly jargon. A list of possible diagnoses for a condition is the "differential diagnosis". Snowman (talk) 13:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • While he has stated that article did not follow sources the only error I actually spot right now in the article has been inserted with his edition: He implies in it that there is no definitive test in life as opposed to diagnosis after death. Actually pathological diagnosis is definitive in the sense that it will be hardly be changed since patient is dead, but as of today is far from being definitive in the sense of "conclusive" since other diseases (Mainly lewy bodies dementia) can also show Lewy bodies at autopsy. Similarly to above while it is interesting his change saying "in brain" his language is again far from perfect since to say "after death at autopsy" is quite redundant (can there be an autopsy when you are still alive?) This edit by Garrondo (talk) 08:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Post-mortem" is the word commonly used in the UK for autopsy. This version using "autopsy" as unexplained jargon may not be as understandable in British English. Snowman (talk) 12:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Summarizing: along this long month of FAC in my opinion article is heading towards consensus. At this point 8 reviewers (in addition to me, the nominator) have stated their support, and only one is clearly against it. While this editor clearly against it being a FA has said different times that article is full of errors and problems everywhere he fails again in showing the many errors, and many of his proposed changes and problems are highly debatable. I would welcome further comments from Sasata , Axl Edjonhston and any other reviewer that may indicate how truly far is the article from being a FA since at this point I feel that Snowmanradio is not neutral regarding this article and his opinion should be balanced against others taking this into account.

Forgot to sign.--Garrondo (talk) 11:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wrong: Sasata says here that "I don't have the time for an exhaustive review of the entire article, so instead I focussed my efforts on one section, "Research directions". This analysis leaves me with the feeling that the article still needs some polish to bring it up to FA standards.". Snowman (talk) 10:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of my comments about this page are backed up by lists of problems found on the page. I wish that this page was up to FA status, but I think that it has potential to embarrass the wiki if it was elevated to FA status at this juncture. Snowman (talk) 10:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have just corrected the poor version produced by Snowmanradio: now says: A physician would make or suspect a diagnosis of Parkinson's disease mainly from the medical history and a neurological examination by determining the presence or absence of signs and symptoms of PD and other related diseases.[1] Reduction of motor impairment in response to administration of levodopa markedly increases the likelihood of PD.[1] There is no definitive test for diagnosis, but finding Lewy bodies in brain samples at autopsy has traditionally been considered the gold standard.--Garrondo (talk) 11:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I presume you refer to this edit of yours. The minor adjustments are marginal in my opinion. I never said that my version was perfect, in fact I said the section still needs work. The point is that I have removed errors that would embarrass the wiki. However, the line is still an over simplification, because Lewy bodies are also found in Lewy body dementia (which is a different diagnosis to PD). Also, I think that the section is still not quite right, because it seems a bit clunky. Snowman (talk) 12:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not only marginal errors: to say that no definitive test exist in life is wrong since there are no definitive test neither in life, nor when somebody is death.--Garrondo (talk) 13:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So what is the point of a post mortem (autopsy in the USA)? Snowman (talk) 19:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While not perfect it is the best we have, and if there has been symptoms on life LB in autopsy it will serve to reassure diagnosis. Even more important: there may be a person for example with a vascular parkinsonism. In such case no presence of LB in autopsy will serve to rule out PD. --Garrondo (talk) 19:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To SnowmanRadio: In your last several edits to the neuropsychiatric section most changes are in either for good or neutral, but you introduced an error that I have corrected: source says that people have higher probabilities of going to a nursing home, does not say that they have more probability of needing it (although common sense says that this is most probably also true).--Garrondo (talk) 11:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you. Some editors would have saved time and just mentioned this in an edit summary for me to see. To me, my version seems a bit better than the original version that said "... a higher probability of attending a nursing home.", and I think your development of my version is even better. I am glad that the end result was good. I am reassured that you can only find this tiny problem with my re-write. Snowman (talk) 20:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Management section is long

The article is 87,200 bytes including references, while there are 21,800 bytes in 'Management.' So this section is one quarter of the article. There is a main article for Management at Treatment of Parkinson's disease. It is surprising that the Management section would still be so large, since we could employ summary style there. Would editors accept shrinking the Management section by moving some material to the sub-article? EdJohnston (talk) 03:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is an important section, difficult at this moment to summarize without loosing important points. I do not think it is a good idea at the moment.--Garrondo (talk) 08:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is a lot of repetition between this PD article and the article on the treatment on PD. It seems that a lot of the treatment article was copied from the PD article. I think that these two pages should be considered to see if data organisation across articles can be improved. Is there anything in the linked page on treatments that is not in the main ariticle? If the long version is going to be kept in the main article, can the pages be merged? Snowman (talk) 14:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sequence of what happened was as follows: When I got to the main article a year ago the secondary article already existed but in a horrible state: full of primary sources, undue weight, missing data... At some point the main article was better and had more info than the secondary article so I copied most content to the secondary article, substituting most of its content. Nevertheless there is some extra info in the secondary page that is not in the primary page (mainly some info in research directions and some info on surgery and some info on meds for symptoms other than motor.) That, and the fact that in the main article there is no place for more info, but it can be added to the secondary page would make me discourage the merging since most probably what would occur is that it would be recreated soon. It would also be a pity to loose the extra info in this page.--Garrondo (talk) 19:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:
    • "As of 2010... " This is recent. That's OK, but nominators need to bear in mind that they need to maintain this particular section in order to avoid breaking the article's accuracy.
That line was written in 2010. Now that we are in 2011 I have changed it to "in 2010 there were".--Garrondo (talk) 07:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Other predominant toxin-based models employ the insecticide rotenone, the herbicide paraquat and the fungicide maneb" Are we saying that these chemicals induce Parkinson's? not clear.... oh wait, I see something up in the Risk factors" section. I dunno if internal wikilinks are considered bad form these days (as a form of self-reference, perhaps); if not, then a link here to the prior section might be acceptable.--Garrondo (talk) 07:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They do not induce PD in animals. They are used to create an animal model, which is shows some features similar to the human disease and serves (more or less) for research, but that it is far from being exact to the disease. I think internal wikilinks are discouraged. I have clarified as follows: PD is not known to occur naturally in any species other than humans, although animal models which show some features of the disease are used in research. The appearance of parkinsonian...--Garrondo (talk) 07:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Synuclein proteins being the main component of Lewy bodies was discovered in 1997" The proteins were discovered then, or the fact that they are the main component of Lewy bodies was discovered then? Simple grammar fix.
The latter. Changed to "That alpha-synuclein is the main component of Lewy bodies was discovered in 1997".--Garrondo (talk) 11:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • And by the way, "synuclein protein" is twice given as "alpha-synuclein protein" and once without the alpha. Dunno if that matters. I see a couple relevant WP articles but won't attempt to wikilink as I am not a domain expert (and alpha-Synuclein protein is wl'd in at least one prior passage.
Alpha-synuclein is a protein of the bigger familiy of synuclein proteins. Now the article only refers to alpha-synuclein and synucleinophaty.--Garrondo (talk) 11:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Person-year redirects to Man-hour... is that a valid wl? ... I'm not sure that the meaning of person-time and person-year is clear here; and additional 8 words or so wouldn't hurt.
Clarified inside bracket to "usually number of new cases per thousand individuals in a year". Is it clear enough now?--Garrondo (talk) 11:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please pardon my ignorance, but is there a reason why the "Causes" section is separate from the "Epidemiology" section? Can or should those sections, or any elements thereof, be combined? I do see the term "risk factor" in the former, forex... or should the "Causes" section be retitled "genetic causes" or similar, since that seems to be all that is discussed? Tks.
No ignorance at all. That dichotomy is present also in sources with some separating both sections and others having them together. I decided to have them separated per two reasons: 1-Maintain consistency with the sections proposed in WP:MEDMOS. 2-Risk factors as of today are not proven enough to say that they cause PD, their mechanism of effect is not really known and have mainly been studied in epidemiological studies with all the pitfalls that that kind of research suffers.--Garrondo (talk) 07:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "progression time of symptoms to a stage of high dependency may be" dependency on levodopa, or on caregivers?
The latter. Clarified.--Garrondo (talk) 08:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Autonomic disturbances" not defined and no relevant WP article.
It was linked as autonomic nervous system in signs and symptoms. I have added a wikilink to autonomic dysfunction in the signs and symptoms introduction.--Garrondo (talk) 08:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "On the other hand a disease mainly characterized" would "case" or "symptom set" a similar term be preferable to "disease" here?
How about "disease pattern"? I have added disease pattern to article.--Garrondo (talk) 08:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "may delay motor complications but are less effective at controlling symptoms" I thought motor complications were symptoms... do you mean "other symptoms", or...?
Motor complications refers to the secondary effect of long-term use of levodopa, so they are not exactly symptoms. Changed to: may delay motor complications of medication use--Garrondo (talk) 08:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "become more common with age at onset" means "become more common with increased age at onset"?
    • I added a blockquote; please feel free to remove it if it seems undesirable.
Section (and article) is quite long, and does not add that much, but it is still interesting and well choosed. I have moved to secondary article.--Garrondo (talk) 08:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Conditional Support. Please consider this a Support when all of my comments above (most of which are minor) are addressed. Congratulations on an excellent article. – Peacock.Lane 07:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page discussion opened

In the belief that this review is no longer raising major issues and ought to be moved toward an endpoint, I have made a comment to that effect at WT:Featured article candidates#Parkinson's disease FAC -- I'm giving a pointer here so that reviewers will be aware of it. Looie496 (talk) 01:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked for further opinions of the article at the medicine and neuroscience projects.--Garrondo (talk) 13:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional impression (5); A number of editors have done copy editing and correcting mistakes by direct editing to the page, and I think this has moved things on a lot. I would support FA providing some remaining issues listed below are considered. Snowman (talk) 16:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked all your editions and fixed errors are you worked. I believe it is done.--Garrondo (talk) 17:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I hope to work in it on Sunday.--Garrondo (talk) 17:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I do not understand your comment.--Garrondo (talk) 17:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence of the pesticides and so on. One section says that all evidence is equivocal and then the next says a two fold increase in risk of PD. Snowman (talk) 17:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional impression (6): There has been an undertaking to fix remaining problems. I support FA status. Snowman (talk) (talk) 17:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC). See Provisional impression (7) below Snowman (talk) 21:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support: I too support promotion to FA. Here and there I think the prose style could be better; it sounds waffly and equivocating in areas that really aren't that hard to summarize well. I may have a few more suggestions. EdJohnston (talk) 17:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With this edit I tried to simplify the first two paragraphs of Diagnosis. Comments are invited. To obtain clarity, it may sometimes be necessary to omit details, but they could be added lower down or in a subarticle if they are believed to be essential. Diagnosis is one of the sections I felt to be 'waffly'. Some of the details appear to be common sense observations that should not require spelling out to our readers. EdJohnston (talk) 19:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. What do you think of my modification? I put a comment in the edit summary. Please re-word it as necessary. I like to team up with someone that can write good English when writing something complicated. Snowman (talk) 21:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provisional impression (7): I would support promoting article to FA providing the short list of issues above and a number higher up the page that I have marked "pending" are resolved (not many issues remaining). Snowman (talk) 20:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Today I did a 50km trekking and I am death-tired. If I have forces I will take a look tomorrow. If not I will try to finish everything on Monday.--Garrondo (talk) 19:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain 21:28, 5 March 2011 [15].

U2 3D

Nominator(s): –Dream out loud (talk) 06:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this as a featured article because I feel as if it meets all the criteria, and has been thoroughly researched and edited. Its previous FAC failed due to needed copyediting; however, users from Guild of Copy Editors have worked on the article since then, as well as members of WikiProject U2 to ensure that this article is up to the needed standard for a featured article. –Dream out loud (talk) 06:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restart, previous nom. I cannot make any sense of this FAC at all; nominators and reviewers, please do not strike commentary other than your own. Images cleared by Fasach Nua, sources and copyvio reviews still needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs, 1 dead external link- this is 403 forbidden. --PresN 21:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Citation fixed (archive link added). –Dream out loud (talk) 22:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (though it should be noted that I have made minor contributions to the article in the past). I've watched the article for several years, and it has only become better and better with each tweak that Dream out loud has tirelessly made. I can't see any criterion that it may fail, or be considered questionable against, and I have looked long and hard; through this FAC and the previous, A-class review, and the GAN. Melicans (talk, contributions) 00:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Prose need work. From the first two paras of the lead:
3-D concert film featuring rock band U2 performing during the Vertigo Tour in 2006 - of performances of the rock band U2 during their 2006...
including tracks from the Vertigo Tour's supporting album - I thought tours support albums, not the other way around.
The film's concert footage also includes pol - remove 'also'
was the first ever live-action digital 3-D film - remove 'ever'
was created to experiment - yikes
film technology pioneered by film producer Steve Schklair. After considering filming American football games in 3-D, the company decided to create a concert fil - the word 'film' is used x 4 times
but eventually decided - rm eventually
seven concerts in various cities in Latin America, and two concerts in Australia. - and two in Australia
with up to eighteen 3-D cameras at once - simultaneous

I can see a lot of great effort has been put in, but it needs a little polish yet. Ceoil 22:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I made a few changes based on your suggestions, although there were a couple I didn't understand. I don't see what's wrong with "was created to experiment" (seems perfectly fine), as does the opening sentence. It seems as if you wanted me to reword it as U2 3D is a 2008 3-D concert film of performances of the rock band U2 during their Vertigo Tour in 2006. Saying its a "film of performances" makes it seem as if its a montage of random clips thrown together, which it isn't. I did edit the lead somewhat recently, as well as the box office info, but not many other changes have been made in the past several months since the Guild of Copy Editors worked on the article, so there shouldn't really be any other issues. –Dream out loud (talk) 01:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A visit by the Guild of Copy Editors, long ago, isn't a guarantee of anything. The prose are stiff and repetitive. I'm offering examples from the first two paras only, and from that think there is a long way to go yet. Ceoil 02:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a copyedit of the entire article. Hopefully, that should address some of your concerns. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 13:43, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Status, Dream out loud? This is stalled after a restart—I see some movement but not much. Still needs source review, spot-check for copyvio, etc. Has Ceoil been pinged to revisit comments? --Andy Walsh (talk) 22:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've 'pinged' Ceoil (I like that word. 'Pinged'.), and Dream out loud left notices at WP:FILM and WP:ROCK asking for feedback. I will look around and try to find some editors experienced in source reviews and copyvio checks to see if they have the time to give the article a look over. Cheers, Melicans (talk, contributions) 00:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: Brianboulton has agreed to do a source check when he has time in the next few days. Melicans (talk, contributions) 01:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Doing it now Brianboulton (talk) 22:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments: I am not particular familiar with media sources, but as far as I can see, most of these look good. Here are a few mainly formatting points I picked up.

  • Ref 7: "ScribeMedia.org" is a web source, not a print medium, and should not be italicised. Same applies in ref 26 (RTE) and perhaps others - please check
  • Ref 16: Why is JoBlo.com a high quality reliable source
  • Ref 33: I was unable to reach this page - can someone else check it out?
  • Ref 58: Who actually publishes this blog? I see National Geographic's name on it, but do they actually publish it? (also 67 et al)
  • Ref 65: Copyright held by The Spokesman-Review; is this the same as "7"?

Not spotchecked yet. Will do so when the above issues are cleared. Brianboulton (talk) 23:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found one other apart from refs 7 and 26 that I fixed, but there may be more as I'm not too familiar with the article. For ref 33 do you mean that you can't access the webpage or you can't find the info? I can see it, but no page has it's own url. To get to the info you have to click 2) Fushion 3D at the bottom and scroll through the five pages presented. National Geographic is the publisher of the U2 3D blog in all of the refs.Melicans (talk, contributions) 23:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 16: I don't see why JoBlo.com is not a reliable source. It's a movie critic website that employs professional writers (as opposed to user contributors) and is run by the JoBlo Media company.
  • Ref 33: Because it's a Flash website, it can't be sourced directly. Melicans explained above how to get to the information. This page lists all the text from the Flash site in a PHP file but it's pretty messy to read. That page could be sourced alternatively but I thought the site itself would be better.
  • Ref 58, et al: This is published by National Geographic. It's a subdomain of U23Dmovie.com, which is published by National Geographic and appears in the site's search engine.[16]
  • Ref 65: 7 is a webzine by The Spokesman-Review, which is published by the Cowles Publishing Company, therefore I listed that company as the publisher for the webzine as well.
Hope this clears up any concerns. –Dream out loud (talk) 19:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sources concerns addresses, and spotchecks revealed no problems. Brianboulton (talk) 23:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SupportLeaning support, mostly on prose and MoS issues, with a few comments:

  • "the album in support of the tour" - isn't it the other way around?
  • Citation needed tag needs to be dealt with
  • Why "Jon and Peter Shapiro" but " David Modell and Jon Modell"?
  • "The Modells' prior involvement with U2" - what prior involvement?
  • "the film was edited incorporating dissolves of at least four frames between shots" - phrasing
  • "the latter which said..." - grammar, and it's not entirely clear whether this refers to Spokesman's Review or Disney
  • Was the version shown at Cannes 55 or 56 minutes?
  • American or British English? You use both "favored" and "favourably"
  • There's a bit of overlinking going on - common terms need not be linked, and terms should not be linked more than once or twice. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Most issues were addressed. The Modell's "prior involvement with U2" is mentioned in the next sentence if you keep reading. I couldn't find any common terms that were linked and didn't need to be, and all repeated links I found are in comply with WP:REPEATLINK. –Dream out loud (talk) 04:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to reword the "prior involvement" paragraph, as it's a bit hard to follow. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just read through the whole paragraph a few times and it seems pretty straightforward to me. Can you be more specific on what's "hard to follow" exactly? –Dream out loud (talk) 23:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a copyedit of the opening sentence. Hopefully that resolves any confusion. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 01:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, primarily because I still don't think the prose is up to the mark throughout:

  • Copy-edit for repetitive word usage. I did a highlight-all for the word "film", and see that it's been used 19 times in the lead alone. After the lead, the word continues to be used once every sentence (on average).
  • A number of sentences have excessive redundant wording and/or detail. Some examples, though this needs auditing throughout:
  • "Ultimately, 14 songs were selected for the final cut, including one song shown during [for] the film's closing credits."
  • "U2 toured Latin America on the fourth leg of the Vertigo Tour in February and March 2006, with eight shows in five cities, all of which would be shot for the film [were filmed], except the first show in Monterrey, Mexico."
  • "Owens sought to have only [wanted] 14–15 songs out of 26 appear in the final cut, most of which would be considered [are] among U2's most popular songs tracks." (in fact, this and the first example sentence could be merged.)
  • Watch out for overlinking—Buenos Aires (and other cities), religious symbols, closing credits, motion sickness, eye strain, cuts, shots, film screening—I see many of these are linked multiple times; I doubt even once is necessary for some. A lot of technical film-terms have been linked throughout; I wonder if these are useful, as most people are understand their basic concept (for eg: title sequence, distributor, computer-generated imagery).
  • Excessive detail, especially in the Distribution section:
  • Do "nine of the final film's 14 songs" all need to be named? Do the names of the software that "converted from 2-D to 3-D using several software programs" help the general reader? If anything, I believe these lists detract from the article, make for difficult reading.
  • "Prior to the screening, U2 performed..." don't see what this sentence has to do with anything.
  • The second paragraph of Screenings is excrutiangly dull, I don't see . Not every last bit of information about U2 3D's release needs to be included here. Almost every major film is shown at a number of Festivals and theatres; there is no reason each showing needs to be mentioned.
  • "U2 3D achieved many "firsts" in cinema history"—haven't all (most of?) these firsts already been mentioned in the article? Why do we need to read about them again?

A good job has been done so far building a comprehensive, well-structured article. However, it has now gone too far to the other side, and seems excessively detailed to me. A big pair of scissors to the article's more trivial content and some copy-editing is what is needed.—indopug (talk) 04:04, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've started working on addressing these concerns. The specific sentences you mentioned as needing copyedits have been addressed. I've gone through the entire article and probably halved the instances that the word "film" is used. I've cut down on overlinking as best as I could (before you posted your comments, I had eliminated repeat links). I've tried to remove more common terms, but I left a few of the links you had suggested, since they seem relevant (e.g. motion sickness, some technical terms). The sentence about them performing at Cannes is completely relevant, although the way it was phrased, it wasn't explicit the band were at Cannes for the screening to actually perform. The cinematic firsts have been taken out of the paragraph in the Legacy section about sprinkled throughout the article if they weren't previously already. There's still a few things to work on to address your remaining concerns, which I'll try to do in the next few days. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 19:22, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the lack of recent comments. I am doing a copyedit now based on above suggestions. I had a feeling for a while that there was too much detail in the article, but Indopug was the first to have made any mention of it, so I left everything in there until now. I will give a follow up comment later this evening following my edits. –Dream out loud (talk) 21:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Y2kcrazyjoker has done a great job addressing the above concerns. Like I said earlier, I had a feeling that I may have been too detailed with the article, but not until now (over 2 months into the 2nd FAC) has anyone made any mention of it. I removed a decent amount of information, cutting the article size by over 5kb. I read through it about four times tonight and I think I got rid of just about everything that may not be entirely relevant. –Dream out loud (talk) 06:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll read the article again soon and strike my concerns.—indopug (talk) 13:33, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could you start marking the issues you had with the article as addressed or still pending? Thanks. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 18:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All of my specific comments have been addressed, but I haven't struck my oppose because I retain two general concerns—redundant prose (as my recent copy-editing should testify) and excessive details. Examples for the latter:
  • Second para of Background—why the specifics about the giant LED display?
  • Final para of Background—don't need four long sentences to, essentially, say "the filming was shifted to the outdoor stadiums of Latin America as U2 were certain that audiences there would respond far more enthusiastically". Bono's statements about Ireland and their absence from Latin America seem excessive. And pretentious.
  • First para of Editing—three consecutive sentences mention "14 songs". Cut some detail and club it all into one sentence? Also, the bits about the film's opening and closing songs being selected so despite never actually doing so in concert isn't in the source cited. This makes the information kind of trivial...
  • "110 microphones were used to record the concert audio, which included microphones placed on the main stage and around the two B-stages to record the band, and microphones placed throughout the venue to record the audience"—no idea how to improve it though.—indopug (talk) 20:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've addressed these specific examples, but I don't think that the LED display paragraph needs to be cut down. There's not much detail about the LED display so much as its pertinent background information about the Modells' meeting and collaborating with the band and their creative partners, and how it led to everyone eventually agreeing to work on U2 3D. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 21:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Copyediting is making lots of improvements, so thanks to everyone who's helped out with that. I've read through it tons of times and done all the copyediting I can do, since it can be hard to improve upon your own writing. As far as the sentence about the microphones, I rewrote that tons of times before saving the article. I know it does sound a little wordy but I really couldn't figure out a better way to word it. It was originally two sentences but I merged it into one. Should it be cut back into two? I don't know. Other than that, I think all other issues have been addressed. –Dream out loud (talk) 00:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I need to go off-wiki for a while, so I've struck my oppose. Although it's improved, I'm not supporting 'cause the prose and level of detail isn't perfect yet. If you could coax an independent copy-editor to look at this, then nothing like it. Final comments:
  • "agreed to the project mainly as a technological experiment rather than a profit-making venture."—as somebody who's very sceptical of U2 and Bono's holier-than-thou antics, I'd be much more comfortable if this were a direct quote, in the article body at least, instead of being presented as fact ('cause, how could we possibly objectively know their real motives?).
  • A few "the band"s could be changed to the more succinct "U2" to reduce repetition.
  • The microphone sentence: yeah, fuck it.
  • I think you missed my comment above about the opening and closing songs . . . Also the info is redundant to the setlist.
Thanks for the article, by the way. I really enjoyed reading it (even though I'm no U2 fan), and learnt a lot about the technical aspects of 3D film-making. Well done,—indopug (talk) 16:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I took care of replacing "the band" with "U2" - one of the simple things in the article that I never realized. As far as U2 making the film as an experiment rather than for profit, I don't exactly see how quoting the source directly would be different. Owens said in the interview "U2 is not doing this for profit reasons. They are completely doing this because they want to be on the forefront of what they think is the future of film technology." I know you are skeptical of U2 and their actions, but I don't think that warrants the need for a direct quote. Also, in response to mentioning the opening and closing songs - their purpose is not to show the reader what the opening and closing songs were (which would be redundant since it's listed in the "Synopsis" and "Setlist" sections already), but rather it is to show that the songs that open and close the film are not the same songs that opened and closed the actual concerts. It further shows how when choosing the songs, Owens decided to go with songs other than the actual set opener and closers. Otherwise I think everything has been addressed. Thank you again for your help and enjoy your break. –Dream out loud (talk) 01:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/March_2011&oldid=417316868"