Talk:Cultural depictions of tuberculosis

Cultural depictions of tuberculosis has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: March 5, 2018. (Reviewed version).

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

keep, June 9, 2017, see discussion.
no consensus, 2 August 2007, see discussion.

Rename?

In the deletion discussion linked above, User:Orlady suggested that this article be renamed tuberculosis in literature and art. I think that cultural depictions of tuberculosis might be a better/more descriptive title. Thoughts? -- Visviva 15:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@Visviva @Orlady Almost 15 years later, I have moved the article as you proposed :) The previous name (Tuberculosis in human culture) was not consistent with most similar articles (also, the word human is pretty redundant). Tuberculosis in culture would be fine too, but again, I think "Cultural depictions of Foo" are more common than "Foo in culture". _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:41, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Little Women

Beth died of congestive heart failure in the books, a common after-effect of Scarlet Fever. She did not have consumption. Reynardo (talk) 03:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tuberculosis in human culture/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Airborne84 (talk · contribs) 02:07, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Starting review. --Airborne84 (talk) 02:07, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for taking this on. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:40, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't made it through yet. Will finish initial look tomorrow. No copyright issues with the images that I can see. Some images appear to be missing some info, but appear to be used in a number of other places and have been around for a while.

Noted.

Making a few copyedits; trying not to make changes based on stylistic preferences, but have been trimming words when it is possible, added a couple of topic sentences, and split at least one long sentence for easier digestion.

Those are fine, thanks.

The sentence with the words "two sopranos and piano", is pretty long and that wording specifically is confusing. I recommend a rewording for clarity. --Airborne84 (talk) 02:55, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done.

As a side note, and I'll just note for the record, my first thought was to consider whether the subject of the article itself was notable. However, (1) this subject has been discussed and recorded on the article's talk page, and (2) there appear to be plenty of similar articles on Wikipedia, so I'm OK with it. --Airborne84 (talk) 03:03, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. We're not short of reliable sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:40, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Almost done. Will review sources and relook one more time. Appears to be GA quality. My only concern is the last section. I see the hidden text in the Wiki markup discussing unsourced anime and manga examples. But the only sourced example in the article seems to be manga (after checking the source). If an anime example can't be sourced via WP:RS, think the anime wording should be removed from that section and the sentence I added in the lede. Another possible improvement would be sourcing modern examples in that section to be able to add the "contemporary" influence in those fields. That would ensure the article is "broad in its coverage" by taking it up to present day, since the manga example is from his early days—apparently the mid-20th century. --Airborne84 (talk) 17:08, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That domain is mainly populated with forums, blogs and chatrooms. However, I have found and added a RS for "anime and manga". It says there are few recent stories that feature TB (not surprising given that TB is now rare in Japan), though some set "in earlier times" did; recent examples either don't exist or aren't reliably cited anywhere. I've put a quote in the ref just for safety. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:53, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the responsiveness. I've completed the review and find that it meets the six Good Article criterions, and meets the standard to be one of Wikipedia's Good Articles. Thank you for your contribution and happy writing! --Airborne84 (talk) 00:25, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]