Talk:Desquamative interstitial pneumonia

Desquamative interstitial pneumonia has been listed as one of the Natural sciences 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: October 23, 2024. (Reviewed version).

Medicine: Pulmonology Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Pulmonology task force.

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Desquamative interstitial pneumonia.

PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles)
The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine.
Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Desquamative interstitial pneumonia/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: IntentionallyDense (talk · contribs) 14:18, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Nub098765 (talk · contribs) 08:55, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, it's one of those medical articles that never get reviewed! I'll step in for those who won't. Let it be known that I'm not an expert at all, but I'll try my best to understand... this. Nub098765 (talk) 08:55, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know if you have any questions! IntentionallyDense (talk) 16:53, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Time to do this.

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Now I'm no expert in medical terminology or conventions, so feel free to ignore me if I erroneously correct something. Lead DIP is a chronic disorder with insidious onset, characterized by shortness of breath, coughing, fever, weakness, weight loss, fatigue, respiratory failure, chest pain, digital clubbing, cyanosis, and hemoptysis, with rare asymptomatic cases. This is a long, WP:SEAOFBLUE list presenting symptoms of varying degrees that I feel could be separated into multiple sentences to facilitate a better flow: DIP is a chronic disorder with an insidious onset. Its common symptoms include shortness of breath, coughing, fever, weakness, weight loss, and fatigue. In more severe cases, it may lead to respiratory failure, chest pain, digital clubbing, cyanosis, and hemoptysis. Asymptomatic cases are rare. Done I went with your wording and also removed some of the wikilinks for the moe obvious symptoms. IntentionallyDense (talk) 19:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply] DIP is often linked to cigarette smoking, environmental or occupational exposure, systemic disorders, and infections. Environmental risk factors include diesel or fire smoke, asbestos, solder smoke, silica, beryllium, nylon filaments, wood dust, graphite, talc, copper dust, aluminum, and tungsten cobalt. DIP has also been linked to certain drugs like marijuana, sirolimus, macrolides, nitrofurantoin, tocainide, and sulfasalazine. Disorders, such as hepatitis C, cytomegalovirus, systemic lupus erythematosus, connective tissue disease, and rheumatoid arthritis, are also linked to DIP. "linked to DIP" or some version of it is repeated thrice here. Maybe shorten this and/or combine it with another paragraph, because it just seems like an unnecessarily long list, especially for the lead. Done Changed the wording and shortened a bit. IntentionallyDense (talk) 19:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply] Guidelines suggest surgical biopsy for diagnosing desquamative interstitial pneumonia if high-resolution computed tomography doesn't reveal classic signs. Chest X-rays, pulmonary function, and laboratory tests reveal non-specific findings or normal results. Thoracic high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT) often shows signs of DIP. Kind of a repetitive sentence structure. Perhaps it could be shortened to improve readability: Diagnosis often requires surgical biopsy, especially when imaging or other tests provide non-specific results. High-resolution computed tomography (HRCT) can help identify DIP features. Done I changed it to your wording as I agree it does flow better! IntentionallyDense (talk) 19:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply] DIP is primarily treated by quitting smoking, but it may not be enough in all cases. In moderate to severe cases, corticosteroids are used. Severe DIP can be treated with lung transplants, but recurrence is possible. Could these not be combined into one sentences, say: DIP is primarily treated by quitting smoking, but it may not be enough in all cases. In moderate to severe cases, corticosteroids are used. Severe DIP can be treated with lung transplants, but recurrence is possible. Done I agree your wording is much better. You're great with prose by the way! IntentionallyDense (talk) 19:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply] DIP has a favorable prognosis, with a mortality rate of 6-28% and a survival rate of 68%-94%. The order of these percentages feels odd. Why would you write "favorable" and then introduce the mortality rate? Shouldn't they be switched? I thought it flowed better that way but if you think it would look better switched let me know. IntentionallyDense (talk) 19:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply] Signs and symptoms No issues here Causes In many cases the cause of DIP cannot be accurately linked to other factors which means these cases are considered idiopathic. The "which means" construction of this sentence makes it feel awkward. Perhaps: In many cases, no specific cause can be identified, and these are classified as idiopathic. Done I changed it to your wording. IntentionallyDense (talk) 19:58, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply] Diagnosis No issues here Treatment No issues here Outlook No issues here Epidemiology The prevalence of desquamative interstitial pneumonia is unknown. It is most common in the fifth decade of life and usually affects those ages 40-60. Males are more likely to have DIP with a male-to-female ratio of 2:1.[4] DIP can sometimes progress very rapidly however severe fibrosis is rare. This sentence structure feels too short. That is, it could benefit from combining some sentences, say: The prevalence of desquamative interstitial pneumonia is unknown, but it most commonly affects people aged 40 to 60, with males twice as likely to havd it as females. While DIP can sometimes progress rapidly, severe fibrosis is rare. Done I changed it to your wording as it flows much nicer that way. IntentionallyDense (talk) 19:58, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply] History No issues here
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Seems formatted well-enough. However, I have a comment: some sections, such as "History" and "Epidemiology," are quite short. If possible, these could be combined or expanded to create a more visually balanced article. However, if more content is not available, leaving them as-is is fine. Just a small caveat The reason these sections are so short is because that is all of the information available on the topic. I chose not to combine them since there isn't really another section that either of those sections would combine with nicely. IntentionallyDense (talk) 19:11, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Respect for using {{sfn}}. The reference section is formatted well. Everything appears neat and professional.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	I commend the use of high-quality, reliable sources. Every claim that could reasonably be challenged is properly cited, and there are no uncited passages. Excellent work here.
	2c. it contains no original research.	See my spotcheck below.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig says "violation unlikely."
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The article covers the key aspects of DIP well, given the limited information available on the subject.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	With under 1,000 words, there isn’t much room to stray off-topic, and the article remains tightly focused throughout.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	The article presents information fairly and neutrally, without editorial bias. No weasel words or WP:WTW. Excellent adherence to neutrality principles.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Hah. Who's editing medical articles, especially this one? Very stable.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	One image, seems to be licensed correctly.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Infobox image shows a case of desquamative interstitial pneumonia, and its caption reflects its significance.
	7. Overall assessment.	See my comments above.

Spotcheck

Source #s are of the Sources section below the sfns.

Source 1 verifies the information it is citing.
Source 2 ditto.
Source 4 ditto.
Source 7 ditto.
Source 9 ditto.
Source 11 ditto.

AGF on the sources I cannot access. Based on the paraphrasing I reviewed, the article stays faithful to the sources. There is no indication of plagiarism or other issues. Nice job. I see nothing wrong with this sourcing.

Verdict

With a few tweaks to the prose, this article is ready for GA status. The information is well-sourced, accurate, and easy to understand for both medical and non-medical readers. Great job simplifying a complex topic without sacrificing detail! I look forward to seeing the final revisions. I'll put this on hold for, say, one week (but I suspect you won't need that long) to resolve the issues or comment on them. Thanksya, Nub098765 (talk) 06:24, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nub098765 I got back to you on all of your suggestions. Thank you for taking the time to do this review, especially on such a foreign topic as I know medical content is a tough topic. Your prose suggestions are amazing and I envy your writing skills. IntentionallyDense (talk) 20:00, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I envy your skills in the medical field of Wikipedia. Your reasons for rejecting are acceptable, and with another read-over, I see no more errors. also, small caveat in my review, for some reason, with one of the suggestions, I pasted my sentence twice instead of yours once, oops! But you seemed to take it well haha

I think this article is ready to pass GA. Good job, and I wish you luck on your future Wikipedia endeavors! Nub098765 (talk) 22:09, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:16, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]