Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Tuberculosis/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by Dana boomer 12:53, 26 September 2011 [1].

Tuberculosis

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Notified: Microbiology, Medicine

Tuberculosis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox

I am nominating this featured article for review because there are clarification, dead external links, lacking reliable references, and unsourced statements tags in the article. As well, the "Research" section is unferenced and the "Notable victims" section should probably be expanded. GamerPro64 (talk) 22:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not sure why it was put up for FAR, instead of asking authors to help clean it up. Whatever. Most of these things can be fixed easily. And, in fact, we shouldn't be adding any more Notable victims. I hate those trivia lists, and in any medical article I edit, I delete them immediately. I don't agree with the desire to make medical article centers for popular knowledge. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 02:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there was a request to fix the problems here but since there was no comments there, its now up for FAR. GamerPro64 (talk) 23:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, progressing to the next step on this page is not a given. They are parked here for a couple of weeks, so if concerns are addressed promptly it might not be needed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
The main focus of concern mentioned in the review section is the featured article criteria on referencing. Dana boomer (talk) 15:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist still some concerns over linkrot and reliability of a couple sources. I also found several one-sentence paragraphs in need of copy editing, and I think the Symptoms and Society and Culture sections are woefully underdeveloped. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can someone uninvolved with the writing of this article do a substantive review? On a quick glance at the article, I feel the brief comments above don't do justice to the article as a whole. Tijfo098 (talk) 03:20, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update? Should this article be kept or delisted, or is additional work needed and ongoing? Does anyone else wish to review the article? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:55, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd forgotten about this one..medical articles are too much like, umm, work really :/ I will just wind up looking over a GA review I started and post some ideas here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:11, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy to review the whole article and try to fix the problems. However given the length of the article and the long list of references, this is likely to take me weeks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Given that articles often sit at FAR for months, I think it is reasonable to allow this time for it and get it fixed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:29, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll help too. But it is a long, difficult article, with lots of citations. My one concern about this process is editors want to delist it rather than make any effort to assist in fixing it. Since this is a medical article, and I at least understand the terminology (but probably flunked microbiology in my past), I'll help as best I can.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 05:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Update? How is work progressing here? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why were notifications of significant contributors never done? I have only now noticed this FAR, and it's months old-- that's wrong. As is the notion that "Notable victims" should be expanded-- see WP:MEDMOS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "look" is poor. Left some thoughts on the article talk page, but the first impression just viewing the page's visuals is that they seem poorly coordinated. (No offense, honest.) Think crispening this up is important to improving the article's impact with the general public.TCO (talk) 05:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Unfortunately, I (as the delegate responsible) never noticed that the notifications had never been completed, and so this issue was not remedied until just now. Because of this, this review is being extended, and will not be removed from this page for at least another 2 weeks (July 20, 2011). This time frame will be extended longer if necessary. Dana boomer (talk) 17:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The original nomination statement was poor to inaccurate (reference to expanding notable victims): would the persons who want this article improved please list the items that need improvement? I don't see any of the issues mentioned in the nomination statement. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:26, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Have you put it in to a deletions process to clarify?TCO (reviews needed) 13:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just looked and someone (Kiernan?) has put one of those 7 day exploding tags on it. I don't think this is appropriate given the long usage of the image accross multiple projects in a high profile article. I have put it into formal deletions instead to get eyes to look at it and determine proper action.TCO (reviews needed) 13:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The American Lung Association, which the museum director has suggested as the copyright holder,[2] claims copyright[3]. DrKiernan (talk) 16:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just FYI...that image is fine. 7 keeps so far.TCO (reviews needed) 05:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was replaced anyway. DrKiernan (talk) 12:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gamer, which of your comments wasn't addressed? It looks like all of the tags have been taken care of. Dead links have all been fixed (the tool shows one, but it's been properly archived), and as far I as can see, the Research and Notable victims sections don't exist any more. Dana boomer (talk) 13:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are still some unreferenced parts in the article, with In other animals, Study and treatment (6th and 7th paragraph), and Screening needing references. GamerPro64 14:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Signs & Symptoms section

The signs and symptons section does contain symptoms, but also contains much more information about extrapulmonary tuberculosis, which doesn't really relate to signs and symptoms. The paragraph on pulmonary tuberculosis could be expanded to include extrabronchial tuberculosis, and then moved to a different section? Also, it seems like both the 75% and 25% claims should be cited (possibly to the same source?) I don't have access to the fulltext of the source used for the extrapulmonary source - does it cite this statistic? DigitalC (talk) 01:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This source could be used to expand the signs and symptoms section to describe the signs and symptoms of both pulmonary and extrapulmonary tuberculosis. Respirology did a Tuberculosis series in 2010. This source also includes a paragraph on pediatric tuberculosis which the article currently barely mentions - perhaps this could be added to the article as well? The 10 articles in the review series can be accessed here. DigitalC (talk) 01:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the above source, I have created a very rough draft in my sandbox if anyone is interested in working on this section of the article. DigitalC (talk) 02:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I'm confused. There's no source for the 75% of cases being pulmonary, and this source says 85% of cases are pulmonary. Also, the article says the extrapulmonary infection moves from the lungs, but then it says later on that pulmonary and extrapulmonary TB "may co-exist", which implies that extrapulmonary TB does not necessarily arise from an active lung infection since it can also arise without active disease in the lungs. I think this needs to be re-phrased to make the distinction between latent and active infection clear. DrKiernan (talk) 19:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I find this article confusing at present, partly because the distinction between latent infection and active disease and primary disease is not always clear, but mostly because of the structure. I think it would be helpful to move that part in pathogenesis about the switch from latent to active infection earlier, say between "Causes" and "Risk factors" so that we understand how the switch occurs and why the risk factors cause the switch. So, merge the two sections "Causes" and "Pathogenesis" and have four sub-sections on the causative agent, its transmission, its pathogenesis, and its risk factors. In addition, there is some unnecessary repetition of material that leads to further confusion and contradiction; for example, in the "Causes" section it says that diabetes increases the risk two- to four-fold, and then two paragraphs down it says it increases it three-fold. I think some material needs to be trimmed out; for example, silicosis is probably not responsible for the vast number of TB cases, and so it should not be the major focus of the risk factors section. In the "Diagnosis" section we're told about the QuantiFERON and T-SPOT tests twice. The last sentence in the "Treatment" section looks as if it could be cut. Material in "Epidemiology" seems to replicate material in "Risk factors". The definition of phthisis is given twice. The "Age" sub-section should be merged into the second paragraph of "History". The claim that it led to beauty and creativity is duplicated in the "Folklore" and "Society and culture" sections. Some updating is needed; in the "Vaccines" section we're told that a DNA vaccine from 2005 could be available for humans in "four to five years"—so, is it available? Another vaccine is "currently" in phase II trials, but the reference is from 2006. In the "Epidemiology" section, in 2007 there are 13 million cases, 9 million new cases, and 2 million deaths, so the next year there are 13+9-2=20 million cases? And the year after that 20+9-2=27 million cases? This doesn't seem to add up, and besides the graph next to this paragraph shows over 50 million reported cases. Another contradictory claim is "Mycobacterium tuberculosis is in the remains of bison" when earlier we are told "humans are the only host of Mycobacterium tuberculosis", presumably this is confusion between the complex and the species. DrKiernan (talk) 19:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist It's been a week since my review, and there's been no reply or action. While I could probably fix the prose issues I outlined, I wouldn't be comfortable attempting to amend the contradictory, outdated and unverified material I mentioned. DrKiernan (talk) 18:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update? - is work still happening here? Have the delist !voters' comments been addressed, and if so have they been asked to revisit? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:49, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's no movement on my comments. DrKiernan (talk) 07:35, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Tuberculosis/archive1&oldid=1088285451"