Talk:Clostridium tetani/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: I'll have a go at this. Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 11:46, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments

Lead

• "drumsticks[1]": where [1] is a large microbiology text with no page ref; but the ref shouldn't be in the lead anyway.  Done

• "All mammals are susceptible to the disease.[2]", where [2] is about Elephants. Two things here: we shouldn't be introducing "new" claims and citations in the lead; and Elephants, however big, aren't "all mammals" (nor is Twycross Zoo necessarily a reliable source). The zoo page does cite a source, Hirsh and Zee (or is the surname Yuan), but without a page ref, so I think we do need something better. The claim might move into 'Role in disease'.  Done

  Removed the claim; it was added since I last worked on the page and it escaped my notice. Thanks for pointing it out. I'll poke around to see if the claim about "all mammals" is true and add it to the "Role in disease" section.

• Lead image caption: better say it's drumstick/tennis racket-shaped when forming spores.  Done

  Changed the caption; do you think it's clear enough or should we explicitly mention drumstick/tennis racket?

  It's fine if that's how you want it.

Characteristics

• "anaerobe and cannot survive": perhaps "anaerobe, meaning that it cannot survive".  Done

  Hmmm I was trying to differentiate between a facultative anaerobe and an obligate anaerobe. I changed the sentence, but I think there's a less awkward way to phrase that. Thinking about it...

Evolution

• "Within Clostridium, C. tetani ". Since the previous sentence also contains ""Within Clostridium", suggest you drop this second lead-in.  Done

• "includes other pathogenic Clostridium species such as...": Please follow this with abbreviations of the genus, i.e. C. botulinum, ... There are three instances in the paragraph that should be abbreviated.  Done

Role in disease

• I wonder whether we shouldn't say something about how being an anaerobe helps make C. Tetani such a dangerous wound pathogen; clearly, it can't grow in well-oxygenated tissues. Maybe you have a suitable source to discuss this.  Done

  I added a sentence and a source to highlight this to the reader. Does this address your concern? (Also the book is online-only for me, so there's no page numbers, or even a DOI that I can find...)

• Maybe spell out nanogram at first instance, the abbreviation ng may not be familiar to many readers.  Done

Research

• Please wikilink genome, Mbp.  Done
• Redlink casein hydrolysate could be avoided by rewording as hydrolysed casein (or by linking to casein with the existing wording). Done

  Fixed wikilinks so they point to the media/agar intended. Made stub for casein hydrolysate media. Will look for more sources.

History

• "clinical descriptions ... the fifth century BC": I think we should have the name of the author and book here, really. Done

  I'm having some trouble getting to the bottom of this. Several tetanus chapters and reviews give passing mention to the disease being known "since antiquity" or since some century BCE; some attribute to the Egyptians as first describers; few cite the source. I'll get a chance to dig around over the next few days and get back to you on this.

  Sounds like one of those stories that is copied from textbook to textbook without anyone's ever checking the sources. It would never happen on the 'pedia... Presumably "Hippocrates" is intended; he wrote “If in a person suffering from a fever, the neck be suddenly twisted round and swallowing becomes almost impossible though there is no swelling, then he will die” (Aphorisms VII:59a). Here is the diagnosis and disclosure: “The commander of the large ship: the anchor crushed his forefinger, the bone below it on the right hand. Inflammation developed, gangrene…Part of the finger fell away…After that, problems with the tongue, he said he could not articulate anything. Prediction made that opisthonis [the lethal climax of tetanus] would come. His jaws became fixed together, then it went to the neck, on the third day he was entirely convulsed backward, with sweating. On the sixth day after the prediction, he died” (Epidemics 5:74).

  Yes! I found a commentary piece that quotes the above from Aphorisms and inserted that as the source. Ajpolino (talk) 18:22, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

• "battle wounds": perhaps we should talk about the death rate from tetanus among WW1 casualties. Done

  I've added a sentence about how equine antiserum kept tetanus at bay in WWI (particularly amazing is Fig. 3 from that paper if you have access). As far as this section generally goes, I'd like to spend some time on Tetanus#History when I get a minute. There's much more rich history about the disease than what is there... Ajpolino (talk) 18:22, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

  Yes, it's an important aspect.

References

• Currently we have three formats in use: Doe J, Doe, J, and Doe, Joe. Please pick one. Done
• Ref 9 Hamborsky / Pink Book - better say that's Chapter 21; really the refs should be divided by page (currently it's pages 341-352, see the PDF, and as a bare minimum the ref should say that, too, for all 11 instances, but it'd be much nicer to give exact pages.) Done

  Added chapter name and page numbers. Didn't add exact pages for each instance of ref used. I hope the source of information will be clear to anyone following the ref since it's relatively short and has section headings. Though if you feel strongly that it helps the reader, I'll happily split it up by page number.Ajpolino (talk) 17:48, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

  Ok.

• Same for ref 8, Todar, it's pages 3-6. Done
• Same for refs 1, 4, 6, 7. Page ranges please. Done
• Ref 10 Bruggemann, please spell out full page range "1316–1321". Done
• Why do we need 'Further reading' "Clinical Microbiology Made Ridiculously Simple"? If it's useful it should be cited in the text, with author, publisher, and page(s). Done

  Also removed two of the ELs.Ajpolino (talk) 17:48, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Summary

Well, I hope you are pleased with the article after this amount of polishing. I think it is well up to GA standard. I hope you will take the time to assist other editors by reviewing one or two articles from the GAN queue - some seem to be languishing there for months at the moment! Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:01, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap: Thank you for taking the time! I'll direct myself there presently! Ajpolino (talk) 17:03, 31 August 2019 (UTC)