Talk:Respiratory disease

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Medicine / Pulmonology (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Pulmonology task force (marked as Top-importance).

Thanks for the positive feedback Orinoco-w, much appreciated. To answer your questions:

  • I think that the section on causes of respiratory disease was more like a list of causes of diseases in general so was not so informative about respiratory disease. I have tried to mention the cause of most of the individual diseases in the individual disease sections where they are known. I hope this is OK.
  • I think that this page, a bit like heart disease, describes a category of disease so the use of lists with links to the individual symptom, test and disease pages is best even though it is not ideal Wikipedia style. Happy to change to prose if you think it best.
  • I could not find the NIH common cold stats at the CDC website, although it is a big site and they may be hiding somewhere.

Jtravers (talk) 21:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow - I've had a look at the Heart Disease page and it's B class already. It's just lists! Maybe we should do the same with Respiratory disease? Orinoco-w (talk) 09:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I've made a major revision, I think it improves the article. This is my first attampt to edit a wikipedia page so let me know what you think. Jtravers (talk) 18:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey there JTravers. I've had a look at your revisions and it's looking good. Just a few questions. There is a WP:MEDMOS manual of style page. This doesn't fit EXACTLY as a disease, but many of the headings can still apply.
  • Did you not want a section on Causes of respiratory disease?
  • We should also be aiming to convert the lists into prose.
  • Is it possible to find the NIH stats in the CDC website?

Cheers Orinoco-w (talk) 18:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Please don't pay any attention to the info in this article, it is very flawed.

Well I'm hoping to remedy this. I have somewhat expanded on the subject while keeping as much of the original stuff as I thought reasonable. I'm looking for some other opinions here, though, as to whether to cull more of the stuff or if there is anything else that needs to be in here. Orinoco-w (talk) 14:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
There are a lot of small sections under larger sections with very little content. For example, the respiratory tract infections section and subsections. I believe that all of those sections should be merged into one section, called "Respiratory tract infections," especially with these sections having so little content. It would at least make the article look neater. Tyrol5 [Talk] 14:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Poorly Written Article[edit]

This article is very poorly written - the content may be sound, but the article sounds like it has been translated from another language.

I'd like to flag it for's a pretty important article in understanding the different types of respiratory disease and their clincal manifestations. Russthomas15 08:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Made some changes to Obstructive. Will try to get around to restrictive. Russthomas15 08:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Made changes to the structure of the article, added redirects from Obstructive Lung Disease and Restrictive Lung Disease to this page. Russthomas15 08:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, this article badly needs work. Right at the beginning it says:
"Diseases of the mammalian respiratory system are classified under one of two broad categories: Physiologic or Anatomical."
What does this mean? The next paragraphs break down these categories, but they don't explain the reasons for this division.
Much more needs to be done. More explanation, more links. --Kyoko 13:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Have changed the first sentence. Restrictive disease and Parenchymal disease need work. I'll fiddle with them later.
Perhaps once they are completed, the stub tag can be removed. Russthomas15 02:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok I've done that - removal of the stub and replaced it with a reference tag is appropriate - done Russthomas15 03:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

scope of article?[edit]

Hello, what is the scope of this article? Should it include systemic diseases that affect the lungs, such as alpha 1-antitrypsin deficiency and cystic fibrosis? --Kyoko 23:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I've put in the A1AT and cystic fibrosis (as well as a bit of other comment here and there) Orinoco-w (talk) 17:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
The main problem with this article is that it is so very broad. I don't think it should be trying to give the entire scope of genetic disorders of the lung or COPD but really should give a quick overall summary of each topic and point to more specific sections. I've tried to be general with Causes (I have a surgical sieve I resort to if I'm stuck: VITAMIN CDEF - Vascular, Infective/Inflammatory, Trauma, Autoimmune, Metabolic, Idiopathic/Iatrogenic, Neoplastic, Congenital, Developmental, Environmental, Functional/Fake) and tried to include a bit of everything. Orinoco-w (talk) 13:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Do we really want to have the spirometry/PFT blah about PEFR, FEV1/FVC etc in this article? Shouldn't it be all in the main COPD article? If this is the case, I can probably chop out that bit and leave it as a general descriptor here. Similar for the Restrictive Lung Disease bit. Orinoco-w (talk) 07:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I do believe that describing spirometry in depth is a little to specific for this article. I believe that only the general descriptor is necessary in this article, being a very nonspecific article. Tyrol5 [Talk] 14:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)