Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Collaboration of the Month

Template:WPMED Navigation

Every week, a Medicine Collaboration of the Week will be selected using this page. The article may or may not yet exist. The topics may either relate to medical basic sciences (anatomy, biochemistry, and so on), or clinical medicine (illnesses, surgical procedures, and so on). The aim is to have a featured-standard article by the end of the period through widespread cooperative editing. This collaboration is part of the WikiProject Medicine project.

The project aims to fill gaps in Wikipedia, to give users a focus and to give us all something to be proud of. Any registered user can nominate and vote on articles (see Voting below). This collaboration uses approval voting. You do not have to be involved in the field of medicine to participate; the opinion of laypeople is valued both for article suggestions and to help ensure that articles are not too technical. New articles will be selected every Wednesday (see the record of previous collaborations). This collaboration is still new; rules may change or be bent as we find our footing.

For individuals wishing to notify others of articles being created or for which they seeking collaborators, or ask for completed pages to be peer-reviewed, please see the project's talk page.

Voting

Please vote in favor of as many candidates as you like; oppose votes have no effect (approval voting is used). Any registered user may vote for an article, provided that account's first edit occurred before the nomination. You do not have to have any special knowledge of medicine to nominate or vote for an article. To vote for an article, simply edit the appropriate section and add # ~~~~. If you believe that a topic does not fall within the scope of this project, please mention your objections in the "Comments" section. Every second Sunday, the article currently with the most votes will be selected to be the new collaboration, although collaborations may be extended from time to time (for instance, during featured article candidacy). In the case of a tie, the article nominated first will be selected. Articles not selected must receive at least two votes per week to remain in consideration. If a nomination fails to achieve sufficient votes, it may be renominated after at least two weeks. You may wish to see the archive of successful nominations.

List of past and present maintainers

1. Knowledge Seeker, founder, July 2005
2. NCurse, June 2006 to present
3. JFW, August 2007 to present

Nominations

Nominations may be made at any time. Nominators must be registered users. To make a nomination, follow the following steps:

1. Edit the list of nominations and paste the following text at the bottom: {{subst:MCOTWnew|article name|~~~~~|your reason for nominating|~~~~}}.
2. Change the text accordingly (for example, {{subst:MCOTWnew|Histiocytosis X|~~~~~|August 2, 2005|It has an "X" in its name.|~~~~}}).
3. Please add {{MCOTWnom}} to the top of the article's talk page.

Nominations for the next MCOTW

Placebo

Nominated at 18:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC).

This article is a rambling, out-of-date treatise that can and should give clearer information about--for example--the placebo effect in response treatments as diverse as high quality evidence-based medicine to medical quackery, why placebo controls are necessary for a quality study, and the known and suspected mechanisms involved.

Support

1. — Scientizzle 18:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
2. — Enviropearson (talk) 03:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
3. LeeVJ (talk) 22:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments.

• This has also been proposed at the Pharmacology project. If chosen, it might be nice for both projects to coordinate its development. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• This article is within the scope of Medicine(B Class), Psychology(Start Class), Philosophy(B Class), Rational Skepticism(B Class), Alternative Medicine(B Class) and Philosophy(Start Class). This is a great opportunity for cross-disciplinary collaboration. -Enviropearson (talk) 03:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
• I think it is pointless if one WikiProject starts working on this without the input of the others. If elected, I would suggest posting messages on the other WikiProjects' talk pages to engage their members. JFW | T@lk 11:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

On reflection of this I have come up with a proposal for Queued articles on the discussion page, LeeVJ (talk) 00:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Developmental milestonesChild development stages

Nominated at 16:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC).

This important topic in pediatrics is just a stub. Support

1. —KetanPanchal^taLK 16:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
2. JFW | T@lk 07:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• I found out that the topic was being dealt with by a list (rather than an article with a complicated name: Child development stages. It's a well compiled list, and I'm not sure if needs urgent attention. Still, I urge others to go through the article and decide if it requires any improvement. I have also proposed that developmental milestones be merged with this article. —KetanPanchal^taLK 16:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

ADHD

Nominated at 17:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC).

This article is of a very controversial nature. Is an important topic due to how common it is. However it doesn't currently provide a good overview of the evidence.

Support

1. Doc James (talk) 17:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
2. JFW | T@lk 16:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
3. 92.5.155.82 (talk) 10:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC) I'd agree with this, more eyes would be helpful.
4. Jeyradan (talk) 16:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
5. Sifaka ^talk 02:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
6. cyclosarin (talk) 10:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
7. Nja²⁴⁷ 21:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
8. Unionhawk ^Talk 00:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
9. Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 21:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
10. RobinHood70 (talk) 18:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
11. Hordaland (talk) 14:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
12. --Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments.

• This is not where content disputes should be re-hashed.
• Comment There currently is an Arbitration case involving this article (see here). I think we should wait for that to settle down before we go ahead and add large amounts of information. Renaissancee (talk) 23:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
• Will this be for only the main article or also the nine subarticles that are split off?--scuro (talk) 13:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd list them here? - Hordaland (talk) 14:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• I don't understand how your question answers my question.--scuro (talk) 03:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

My 'question' was intended to ask you to flesh out your question. Not everyone has at her/his fingertips what those 9 are.

I know very little about the MCOTW process and cannot answer your question. - Hordaland (talk) 16:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) In response to Hordaland's request, here is an alphabetized list of sub-articles I was able to find by doing a search for "main article" in the ADHD article, including the horizontal list at the bottom - feel free to edit this list to add any others that may have been missed due to the limitations of that search.

• ADHD coaching
• ADHD predominantly inattentive
• Adult attention deficit hyperactivity disorder
• Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder controversies
• Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder management
• Diet and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder
• History of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder
• List of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder organizations
• Low arousal theory
• Neurodiversity
• Social construct theory of ADHD

--RobinHood70 (talk) 18:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I need positive evidence that this article is safe for MCOTW. JFW | T@lk 23:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

By "safe", are you referring to the collapsed discussion below, or am I missing something else? --RobinHood70 (talk) 00:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the list, RobinHood! JFW, assuming I understand the question, ArbCom required a mentor to be found by yesterday, else they will appoint one. I'd guess that that is what you are waiting for. - Hordaland (talk) 22:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Here is an update on the current status of the article. There are many unresolved issues mainly about undue weight and bias. There has been no positive movement forwards for over a month. Concerns have been ignored.--scuro (talk) 00:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

You seem to really not want doctors or pharmacologists to review the article. If the article is so biased why not let "mainstream" expert healthcare professionals review it? Editors responded non-stop on the talk page and a lot of issues were resolved. You never will have 100% agreement anyway so it is not surprising some things were not resolved.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

LG, stop trying to personalize everything with your subjective judgements about other contributors and their motives. These judgements are more often wrong then right, and this longstanding approach has NEVER been appreciated. It also goes against the spirit of wikipedia. Fact of the matter is that the majority of recent issues on the discussion page have not been resolved. Worse, a good number of these issues have been totally ignored. See discussion, archives #12-16 (issues have been marked with "resolved" or "unresolved" tags tags). I have no issue with that article being a collaboration of the week, other then the fact that the majority of the contributors have avoided ALL attempts at true consensus building at every turn. The possibility of a lot of wasted time here exists, so the previous post was a simple update of the status of the situation, as requested.--scuro (talk) 15:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I shall provide some diffs for my suspicions. I do not see your name supporting the nomination. I did not accuse but said it "seems like"; my suspicions were not based on the one comment above but on several other incidents which led myself and others to draw a similar view. Your past history suggests that you do not want doctors and pharmacists to review the article.saying it should not be nominated, delaying nomination, then making comments which imply the article is still drama filled here on this project page and saying that it is a waste of everyone's time to get it nominated,[1], [2], [3] ruining any chance of it being nominated when assurances are requested that it is safe and further you still have not added your name above to support the nomination. What other conclusion can one draw? Of course there is always the possibilty of an innocent answer. Anyway any chance of the ADHD article being nominated has been eliminated; I thought it would be good to get independent pharmacists and doctors to review it. Oh well, water under the bridge now.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 12:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Twelve people have signed on for ADHD to be accepted as MCOTW. Literaturegeek now seems to be for throwing in the towel. I don't agree. Both in overview (structure etc) and in detail the article(s) could use many more knowledgable, experienced eyes! Even scuro now writes "I have no issue with that article being a collaboration of the week, other then [SIC] the fact that the majority of the contributors have avoided ALL attempts at true consensus building at every turn."

Fine, let's double the number of contributors for a little while and see if the new constellation feels itself capable of "true consensus-building". Please! - Hordaland (talk) 16:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I strongly support this nomination Hordaland. I am not throwing in the towel but just looking at the facts; look at date when it was nominated, exactly a year ago! I was also going by comment by admin here that said it could not proceed without "positive evidence" that it was safe (presumably meaning drama free and all editors agreeing to nomination). The admin here wanted positive evidence, scuro arrived and gave him negative evidence so I came to a conclusion. I am as annoyed as you are Hordaland about this. I hope that the collaboration proceeds, hence why I voted to support it, but I am sorry after a year of waiting and given the facts I am losing hope of a wiki project intervention and review. I would like too see scuro actually vote to support the collaboration as I have requested. Since he was the main focus of the arbcom, adding his official vote would restore some confidence that a collaboration can proceed, even after a year.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

And I "strongly support" not having any more of this sniping on this page.

Scuro, the Arbcom case required you to obtain and retain a mentor as a condition of your continued participation in this subject area. I believe that you've been unable to find one on your own. Has Arbcom bothered to appoint one yet? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

(←) Wait, am I missing something? Why is it bad for an article that clearly could use some work to be the subject of an organized collaboration?--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 23:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Above all wikipedia is a collaborative process. Certain parties here have avoided every attempt at collaboration, they have NEVER sought to resolve differences with those who hold opinions contrary to their opinions. Evidence of this happened as recently as yesterday when two of the nominating parties rejected mediation. Somehow they think if intelligent people are invited onto the page that everything will be solved. The excuses as to why collaboration can't be done are irrelevant if the attempt at true collaboration has never been made. WPM can choose this article but my opinion has only been reinforced by recent activity on and off the ADHD page. Do not put intelligent people through unnecessary drama.--scuro (talk) 00:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Extended content

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. This page and it's sister page ADHD controversies has one or more contributors with HUGE ownership issues as documented by an administrator. Nothing has changed. Do not waste anyone's time with this article until the process of consensus is firmly established once more.--scuro (talk) 04:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC) It would be helpful for evidence and examples to be provided to verify this claim. Thank you. Nja247 21:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC) Plus, if there are ownership issues, then don't you think making this the MCOTW would help that issue?--Unionhawk Talk 00:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC) Evidence of page ownership was provided at the recent unsuccessful wikiquette alert filled against me.[[4]] Most of the major contributors were involved in this and should know of it and the evidence provided. I understand that some of you want the article to be a featured article. But it is wrong to virtually block a user off of the article for over a year, change the article in a major way, and then seek featured article status. How would the new editors, coming in to tweak the article, know that the version on the page is one sided without a lot of drama unfolding in talk. Why should they waste their time in such a process when they could work on another article with contributors who all want to make a page better and all seek consensus? True NPOV occurs when all parties are at the table and come to consensus about content. I have been at that table for over a year, and one contributor seems to avoid consensus building while using page ownership to allow only edits that they approve of. I would support seeking the Medicine Collaboration of the Week article when the process of consensus is being followed and the content has been vetted out to some degree. As it stands now, only certain editors are editing the page.--scuro (talk) 04:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC) Right now, seeing this as a good article would be great. Featured is probably a long way away. I would be happy to seek consensus, but, at the moment, all you seem to do is revert with edit summaries like "please discuss this on the talk page," without actually starting a discussion on the talk page.--Unionhawk Talk 16:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC) That's a very broad brush your are using and you have loaded it on thick. I'm no paint by numbers dude!--scuro (talk) 03:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC) Nor have you provided the sources I've asked for numerous times. Nja247 07:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Anatomy

Nominated at 23:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC).

Scouring 0.7 release candidate, this was one of two articles that caught my attention that deserved attention. A top importance article - C-class! Was a former GAN. This a fairly short overview type article so shouldn't be too tricky to get into shape!.plenty of images and easy references should be available.(C- class)(60,000 hits)(top)

Support

1. LeeVJ (talk) 23:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
2. JFW | T@lk 23:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments.

Migraine

Nominated at 23:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC).

Scouring 0.7 release candidate, this was one of two articles that caught my attention that deserved attention. A meaty article 100+ refs already, but doesn't seem to have had a collaboration of the week applied to it before...(B-class)(115,000)(mid)(todo)

Support

1. LeeVJ (talk) 23:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
2. JFW | T@lk 23:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
3. Kpjas (talk) 19:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments.

• Definitely. JFW | T@lk 23:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Chest pain

Nominated at 09:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC).

Based on page view statistics I obtained from MedlinePlus, this subject scores quite poorly. Symptoms in general are imho less developed compared to conditions. Perhaps this could become an example of a good symptom article.

Support

1. Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 09:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
2. Kpjas (talk) 19:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC) - challenging
3. JFW | T@lk 19:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments

Full Genome Sequencing

Nominated at 19:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC).

February 23, 2009

Support

1. This technology will be commercialized by the end of the year and will be a tremendously powerful new technology for our entire civilization. It is a major component of Kurzweil's Singularity and is an integral component of the genetic revolution. The entire future of medicine, such as the rapidly emerging field of Predictive Medicine, will be based upon this new technology that will change the paradigm of medicine from being reactionary to being proactive against disease.
2. Support NCurse _work 15:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments.

Hypertension

This article is rambling and difficult to read as it now exists. It seems to me that if you didn't already know the information presented in the article, it would be tough to learn it from there. Hypertension is extremely common; I suspect that this page gets a lot of views and has the potential to have a big impact. It ought to be a shining example of what a medical wikipedia page can be. Wawot1 (talk) 23:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Wawot1 (talk) 23:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
2. JFW | T@lk 09:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments.

Mental retardation

An important article, I think -- I disagree with the "mid-importance" rating it has been given. It's a touchy subject for a variety of reasons, and really should be an example of our best work. It's currently not terrible, but not particularly great. The Japanese article is apparently featured, so perhaps some Japanese-speaking editors can work from there. 98.218.124.185 (talk)

Support

1. 98.218.124.185 (talk)
2. JFW | T@lk 09:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment

• Issues about rating should not be raised here. I also don't think we should be dependent on the content of the Japanese article. JFW | T@lk 09:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Bipolar disorder

Very important, high-profile topic currently at B class with the potential to be made into a GA, or perhaps FA, with enough effort and community collaboration. According to WikiProject Medicine's popular pages, bipolar disorder is the 17th most viewed website with 372920 views, or 12430 views per day. I therefore see it as of vital importance that this topic reaches a good status, and given that we have some psychiatrists involved in the project, it might be worth a shot getting them to lead us through the renovation of the topic. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  07:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  07:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
2. JFW | T@lk 09:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments

Breast cancer

This top importance article is currently of mediocre B quality. The community's assistance would be invaluable. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
2. WS (talk) 17:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
3. JFW | T@lk 01:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Chronic Fatigue Syndrome

Nominated at 17:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC).

This highly controversial article has been through a significant number of disputes and could use a collaboration of those with a better medical understanding of the condition, from both the organic and psychiatric sides of the larger medical debate, to judge it for weight and accuracy.

Support

1. RobinHood70 (talk) 17:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
2. Sam Weller (talk) 19:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• Does this refer only to the main article or also the numerous subarticles that were once split off? JFW | T@lk 19:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking only of the main article, but I would imagine the sub-articles would benefit from a body of editors as well. Merging some of them back into the main article might also be appropriate, though I know that's been debated in the past and ultimately nothing was done. --RobinHood70 (talk) 19:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC) (Edited: 20:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC))

Merging some subarticles might be OK, as CFS is not overlong. A way of ensuring that the remaining subarticles are accurately summarized is needed. Sam Weller (talk) 19:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Alcohol and cancer

Nominated at 00:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC).

Article is a mess, particularly with overuse of direct quotes. I have removed the worst of the direct quoting but it is still a mess. A week's worth of work and I think that we could get the article up to a B class article. It has been a mess for over 2 years now.

Support

1. Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments.

Physician

Nominated at 14:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC).

rated of top importance but currently only as B quality; gets lots of vandalism but not a lot of real work, and could do with a few more physicians making contributions

Support

1. DavidB 14:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments

Participants

Please note your interest in this collaboration at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Participants. (Those who were listed here previously were moved to that list.)

Tools

• /History — record of previous collaborations
• /Successful nominations
• /Expired nominations

{{CurrentMCOTW}} is the banner for the current collaboration. You may wish to place it on your user or talk page.

{{MCOTWnom}} is placed on the talk pages of articles currently being considered for MCOTW. It places articles in Category:MCOTW candidates.

{{MCOTWcur}} is for the current collaboration article. While it is currently being placed at the top of articles, its placement has not been finalized. It may go on the article and/or talk page.

{{Collab-medicine}} is a small template containing just a link to the current collaboration. It is transcluded elsewhere for automation. The previous collaboration is at {{Collab-medicine-prev}}

{{MCOTWprev}} is for articles previously selected as the collaboration of the week.

{{MCOTWnew}} sets up new nominations. It should always be substituted.

{{MCOTWthanks}} thanks voters for the support. It should ideally be substituted because its contents would change with updates to {{collab-medicine}} and {{collab-medicine-prev}}