Talk:Kawasaki disease/GA1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Rcej (Robert) - talk 04:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello :) We'll begin the review in a couple days or so... I need to read thru closely and prepare, etc., first. Rcej (Robert) - talk 04:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts, and I ll be working with you on this :-) MaenK.A.Talk 10:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I think we can start now :) I like to focus on just a few issues at a time, so things don't seem overwhelming; I also like the nominator to set the pace of the review. Since you or whomever helps (if) will be doing the work, feel free to take as much time as you choose... and holler when you're ready! No hurry, ever :)

Now, about the article; we are definitely getting it to GA... but we have a lot of stuff to do. You've done some good work generally defining the disease; now we'll go deeper! So, first up:

  • The article is under-cited and under-referenced. Every sentence and list item must be cited, the exception being that several sentences/list items/a paragraph is verifiably covered by a source. If the latter is the case, one citation at the end of the paragraph or list is fine :) Also, we need to increase the number of journal sources; but as the article grows, that'll happen naturally. We must not have any 'citation needed' stickers, either.
  • The first section should be a Classification section. Where does Kawasaki disease fit in alongside other inflammatory autoimmune diseases affecting the cutaneous tissue and mucosa associated with the lymphatic system? How is KD delineated from other such diseases? Classification should address things like that. Here's an example of a GA Classification section.

Well, that's enough stuff to worry about until you are ready to move on. Absolutely, tell me/ask me whatever you are concerned with or need :) And always, take whatever time you need! Rcej (Robert) - talk 08:16, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

  • First thank you for giving me the chance to chose the pace, and that is exactly what I want, since as you know I am a medical student and I am busy studying most of the time, I am currently working on this, which is a list of resources I will use to improve the article, I don't want to disrupt the article over a long period, so I started collecting them under a subpage, And I ll inform you when I am done. Thank you again MaenK.A.Talk 13:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Well hello aren't you prepared :) Cool subpage! Rcej (Robert) - talk 01:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
thank you :-), and I am sorry for that, its just that I ve just had a big pediatrics exam, and I was too busy to get things ready before you did the review MaenK.A.Talk 07:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
No need to apologize :) I've done the exact same thing during a very tedious review where I was the nominator. I became a subpageaholic! I had the page deleted once I didn't need it. Rcej (Robert) - talk 08:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
How about this as a start for the classification section, I want to develop it under a subpage before moving to article MaenK.A.Talk 17:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Great start! One thing to keep in mind when writing medicine articles especially, is to use as neutral of syntax as possible; for instance where you have "...preferably coronary arteries.", you might want to weaken that slightly to read something like "...often including coronary arteries." :) Rcej (Robert) - talk 04:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Shall I use multiple citations for the same statement like you did here?? MaenK.A.Talk 17:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
The reason I do that sometimes is because the entire statement could only be supported by all of those particular sources collectively, and since I don't like to ref within a sentence... I just pile them up after the end of the sentence. That's a very acceptable referencing style too, and much neater looking :) Makes for easier rewrites, also! Rcej (Robert) - talk 04:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Great, I am currently adding multiple references to the article you may need to check that MaenK.A.Talk 17:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Nice! But don't worry about wikilinking the journal titles... unecessary, a hassle, and some persnickity medical wiki-ers actually frown on it :) Rcej (Robert) - talk 03:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the advise about the linking of the journal titles, are we done with the classification section now?? MaenK.A.Talk 16:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Not ready yet :) Let's flesh out two areas: 1. What finding(s) in KD within the designation 'systemic vasculitis' delineates it from others of that designation? Specify the findings and the other disorders (PMID 18524103). 2. Is KD typically known to affect medium-sized vasculature? (PMID 19946711) Clarify, and mention other disorders in this area too. Rcej (Robert) - talk 03:55, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Is it Done now :-) MaenK.A.Talk 13:45, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Nope. Gotta go for now, tho... we'll resume shortly :) Rcej (Robert) - talk 08:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok...I'm back :) Here's what the Classification section needs now:

  • Define the term "necrotizing".  Done MaenK.A.Talk 22:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Tell us what comprises necrotizing vasculitis, clinically. Delineate the KD version of necrotizing vasculitis from the non-KD version.  Done MaenK.A.Talk 10:53, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Do you suggest that I talk about the pathogenesis here?? please be more specific, what do you mean by how?? MaenK.A.Talk 10:53, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, you are right... that's best left for pathophysiology. Rcej (Robert) - talk 04:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
  • "It is a syndrome affecting multiple organ systems, and in the acute stage of KD, systemic inflammatory changes are evident in many organs." Describe the inflammatory changes.

This seems tedious... and it is, actually. But we need in this section to establish the identity of KD among its 'peers', as much as possible. Rcej (Robert) - talk 03:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

What now?? are we done with that?? MaenK.A.Talk 22:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Not yet :) We need to know where in the classification scheme of systemic vasculitis KD fits, specifying that KD is a medium sized arterial vasculitis and what criteria in systemic vasculitis determines the designation 'medium sized'. Also, KD is a primary childhood vasculitis. How does primary childhood vasculitis relate to 'medium sized' and systemic vasculitis? Here's two new sources, one has a link to a full text ver: PMID 18761873, PMID 16322081; also, you may want to revisit two you're already using, PMID 19946711, PMID 17408915. Seems like a lot still, but we'll be ready to move on eventually ;D Rcej (Robert) - talk 04:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
You know I cant exactly know what you want me to do, can you please help with completing the section?? I mean I cant find a way to state "what criteria in systemic vasculitis determines the designation 'medium sized'" or "How does primary childhood vasculitis relate to 'medium sized' and systemic vasculitis" even though I red the two resources you provide and many more!!,sorry for that. more than that, I believe that the section is ok now and if you check any Kawasaki review you will not find a wider classification section, that is if you find that section which is rarely referred to, and actually this is making the process harder MaenK.A.Talk 16:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I will finish up the section ASAP :) hmm... give me a couple days to figure out what we need to focus on next! Rcej (Robert) - talk 07:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
That would be great, thank you, and take your time :-) MaenK.A.Talk 18:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


Please check the tables at the diagnosis and the symptoms sections, and give me an opinion MaenK.A.Talk 14:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The table 'less common manifestations' is nice! The ref used for the 'Criteria for diagnosis' table is a book; cite the page numbers too :) I would rather not have a 'Differential diagnosis' table; we will likely require a Differential diagnosis subsection in Diagnosis. That would have to tell us how the diagnosis of KD is reached when another specified disorder is suspected. Rcej (Robert) - talk 06:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
I have removed the Differential diagnosis table MaenK.A.Talk 15:57, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

See also[edit]

This content should usually be combined into the article.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:50, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

True; but as the current article is not the final version, and I'm attempting to conduct the review in a specifically ordered fashion... we are not going to incorporate that list yet, when things are apt to change :) Rcej (Robert) - talk 03:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Update: almost done with classification; I may have done a poor job explaining this type section... I can 'do' slightly better than I can 'tell', apparently ;) Two new things for you to do:

  • I ve created and added a table according to your source MaenK.A.Talk 13:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Good job! Rcej (Robert) - talk 05:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
  •  Done

Also, let's not cut/paste text from a source; if this applies to you, make it a habit of writing all of your additions to any wiki article completely in your own words. Good practice, too, for the further you go in your medical career :) If you want to impress the hardcore, persnickity professors/doctors that are void of human emotions... writing proficiently in all areas will do it every time! Rcej (Robert) - talk 06:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Next: in the Signs and symptoms section; the bullet list of common symptoms is basically a repetition of the paragraph above, albeit more specific. Let's incorporate that listing into the paragraph, and the less common symptoms in that table could instead be a bullet list below the paragraph.-- Rcej (Robert) - talk 05:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I am so sorry this is taking so long, but I am very busy now with my final exams, but I will be available soon MaenK.A.Talk 17:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
No worries :) Much success with your finals! Rcej (Robert) - talk 06:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
So what is happening? GA reviews should really take only a week or two. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 01:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
The nominator has some personal matters that have come up, so I'm allowing him some extra time. Some reviews take months... are you subjugating this one? :) Rcej (Robert) - talk 01:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I understand that, but the general consensus at WT:GAN is one or two weeks. Articles can always be renominated and the review process shpuld not be a long drawn out process. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 02:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I was kind of going by the looser time consensus here, but I'll try to speed things up. :) Rcej (Robert) - talk 04:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC)