Wikipedia:Featured article review/Alzheimer's disease/archive1

Alzheimer's disease

Alzheimer's disease (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Alzheimer's disease
• Featured article candidates/Alzheimer's disease/archive1

• Featured article review/Alzheimer's disease/archive1

Notified: Original nominators have left the project; will notify WikiProject Medicine

Review section

Sadly, this 2008 promotion has fallen out of date and I think it no longer stands up against the FA criteria. Specifically it can no longer be considered comprehensive and well-researched since the references are so old (in medicine time, which moves quickly). A few users have left comments calling out specific issues at Talk:Alzheimer's_disease#FAR_needed and a subject-matter expert reviewed the article and gave section-by-section suggestions at Talk:Alzheimer's_disease#Initial_suggestions_for_FAR. The consensus of all seems to be that a fairly heavy update will be needed to bring this back in line with criteria. Happy to hear others' thoughts. Ajpolino (talk) 16:05, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Pinging those who commented at the talk page @Buidhe, SkepticalRaptor, and SandyGeorgia: just so all are aware that we've started the FAR. Ajpolino (talk) 16:20, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping; a once fine article, pretty well deteriorated that will require a HUGE effort to restore. And it seems our efforts are too often misspent these days. I saw that the most controversial FDA med approval EVER (Aducanumab ) was added to the article— the one that led to three experts resigning from the FDA advisory panel in protest, and yet the info was added to Wikipedia based on laysources. No MEDRS-compliant source discusses that med as there is no evidence it works and any mention in the AZ article is UNDUE — so we report laypress now, I guess. So, this article is well out of line with FA standards, and about ten years out of date. Sorry to see it go; sure hope someone will step up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:08, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Have removed the aducanumab reference. I think some mention of it could be due, but it would need to be quite heavily contextualized as controversial, and instead we have straight-faced citing of a press release. This will need fairly significant work; I tend to think we have an ethical obligation of sorts for an article like this to be up-to-date, regardless of whether it keeps the star on it or not, but unfortunately as Ajpolino notes we're so dependent on who we have, and the current cross-section of active meditors doesn't have many people with the right areas of interest to maintain that article. (If this were Early-onset Alzheimer's disease I'd be much more useful, but...) Vaticidalprophet 13:35, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

The drug article will also need significant attention, as this had been one of the most highly controversial drug decisions EVER.

• https://www.wsj.com/articles/fda-to-probe-communications-between-staff-and-biogen-on-alzheimers-drug-11625849975
• https://www.bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n1503
• https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/10/health/aduhelm-fda-resign-alzheimers.html
• https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/10/third-member-of-prestigious-fda-panel-resigns-over-approval-of-biogens-alzheimers-drug.html
• https://www.npr.org/2021/06/11/1005567149/3-experts-have-resigned-from-an-fda-committee-over-alzheimers-drug-approval

Shocking that the US FDA is now bowing to patient advocacy groups. We shouldn't be adding it to an article as a treatment when there are zero secondary sources that indicate it works. This is a wonderful example of how MEDRS can keep articles honest, especially in light of FDA and drug company malfunctioning and malfeasance. Due mention of the controversy should be added to the drug article, but I don't believe it has any place in the Alzheimer's article. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:13, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

• @SandyGeorgia, Ajpolino, and Vaticidalprophet: - can we get an update here? Is there any work planned on this one? Hog Farm _Talk 19:53, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

• We have been mentioning for months now that this article needs a complete rewrite, which has not happened in the least. Move to FARC, what a pity. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:42, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

  Agreed. I agree wholeheartedly with VP above that we basically have an obligation to keep up an article on such a high-interest topic, but until we can muster the people-hours to do so, I think this doesn't meet FA criteria. There are specific suggestions to guide future updaters at Talk:Alzheimer's_disease#Initial_suggestions_for_FAR. To my knowledge no one has imminent plans to fix up the article. So we can move to FARC. Ajpolino (talk) 21:55, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

• Move to FARC per above, unless somebody steps in. As someone with a number of relatives who have had this disease, it's sad to see this article in this shape. Hog Farm _Talk 22:23, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

A wild shot here … Lukelahood this article needs a complete rewrite, top to bottom … have you the interest, and more importantly, have you the time? I am sure if someone will take the lead, that others with FA experience will peek in, but someone has to come up with the latest highest quality secondary reviews to completely rewrite. The talk page has tons of information about the problems, as the article is years out of date, yet one of WP:MED’s highest pageviews. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:04, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, I'm pretty busy currently with medical school, board examinations, and residency applications, and I am not up to speed with Alzheimer disease beyond the basics... I can't research this enough to bring it up to date. I appreciate the thought though!Lukelahood (talk) 16:30, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include currency and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:17, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

• Delist per my comments above. Ajpolino (talk) 15:28, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
• Delist, sadly. This needs a lot of work. Hog Farm _Talk 16:56, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
• Delist, particularly for lack of currency. It must be much improved, but I don't think it will be possible to bring to FA status until the situation with Aducanumab becomes clarified. I disagree with the view that proposed medicines, especially if approved by a major country, shouldn't be mentioned. We write for the general reader and the approval is no longer a purely medical issue, but one of policy. It should be mainly covered in its own article, but there has to be at least a link and I would say a summary. As there seems to be disagreement on this, getting FA approval for a new version may be impossible. DGG ( talk ) 04:54, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
• Delist – first of all, I am not particularly familiar with how medicine articles are treated or their sourcing; in fact, I'm just here because I have been working on an article about a six-hour album series that portrays the stages of Alzheimer's. However, compared to other FAs—in particular, dementia with Lewy bodies—and considering that medicine articles apparently need up-to-date medical sources, this article is pretty much in a non-FA quality. I have made minor contributions to this article in Media, since this section IMO does not necessarily require medical citations, but I could be wrong. Is it just me or does it seem that most articles promoted before the 2010s now don't meet FACR anymore? Wetrorave (talk) 13:16, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
• Delist Many editors that I respect have stated that this article should be delisted so I am mostly deferring to their judgment. The "Other hypotheses" and "Diagnosis" sections have update needed banners, which concerns me. Z1720 (talk) 16:54, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
• Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:49, 14 August 2021 (UTC)