Wikipedia:Featured article review/Tuberculosis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

[edit] Tuberculosis

Article is still a featured article

[edit] Review commentary

Promoted during "Brilliant prose" phase, no original author. Messages left at Medicine FAR, Clinical Medicine, and Medicine. Sandy 15:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I've made an effort to resolve the organisational problems I found with this article. However, I am still concerned that it has only 13 inline references from 11 sources. Of its eight general references, three have abstracts available, so they could be easily matched with the statements they support. It may also be possible to obtain further sources from sub-articles such as Tuberculosis treatment. Others, such as Tuberculosis diagnosis, are similarly poorly referenced. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

First, you could use more images from here. NCurse work 14:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
The article is seriously undercited, doesn't conform to WP:LAYOUT or WP:MEDMOS, doesn't use the highest quality sources specific to the subject area, doesn't cite PMIDs, has an External link farm, the lead is overly technical and not a compelling summary, the article mixes citation styles and uses weasle words. Adding images might make it pretty, but won't address the major problems :-) I've been working my way through the medical articles, and hadn't realized this one was so bad: all of the older ones should be checked. Sandy 15:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • A new user, User:Gak, is an infectious diseases specialist. He may be able to assist here. JFW | T@lk 19:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm leaving a note (hate to hit a new person with a massive cleanup job :-) Sandy 20:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Ha ha ha you think I haven't already been staring at tuberculosis for the last 3 months and shaking my head in dispair? I rewrote the TB treatment article with a view to gradually tackling the various bits one by one in manageable chunks. My current project is re-writing the latent tuberculosis article so it is less US-centric and actually applicable to people elsewhere. I've got together some decent references on my desk and I'm planning to do that over the next few days. The current UK NICE guidelines on TB are MASSIVE and dwarf even the CDC guidelines. Currently trying to recover from a weekend on call, so please forgive me if I'm a bit tardy. Also trying to organise a job move from Birmingham to Bangkok. --Gak 22:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The WP:LAYOUT/WP:MEDMOS concerns should be relatively more easy to fix than the issues with sources. An action plan could look like this:
  1. Make structure conform to guidelines
  2. Mark up unsourced statements and references not within WP:RS
  3. Find missing or more reliable references as appropriate.
Sounds like it will take more than a week, with people being busy. Is it worth demoting the article? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
You have the entire month of October, and more time is usually granted when progress is being made. The process is at least two full weeks in review, followed by at least two weeks in FARC. Any chance of making Tuberculosis the MCOTW? Sandy 16:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I've made a start at adding more references. However, I only know the <ref>stuff by stuff in thing</ref> format so I hope this isn't too disruptive. TimVickers 22:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
    • It looks good, Tim. The only thing you might do differently is italicize the journal name instead of the article name: it looks like that will maintain consistency with the cite template that was in use there. But don't worry about that: a layperson (like me :-) can go in and fix refs anytime - more important is for the docs to get the writing done. Sandy 23:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I've made a stab at reorganizing the sections to more closely conform to WP:MEDMOS, cleaned out the External link farm, fixed some headings to conform with WP:MOS, cleaned up the opening list, cleaned up some references, and did some copy editing. The article is still mostly unreferenced, though, and some of the text is awful. It also seems to focus a lot on the UK. It still needs a lot of work. Sandy 06:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
    • The article now has a cleaner structure, better conforming to WP:MEDMOS, and TimVickers has added some inline cites, but the article is still vastly undercited and not yet comprehensive. Some important sections (Diagnosis and Treatment) are very brief, relying on daughter articles via Summary style, but those daughter articles aren't fully cited and are very technical. A non-technical, referenced, comprehensive, encyclopedic overview/summary of diagnosis and treatment would help. Similar for prognosis, in terms of answering basic layperson questions about the prognosis for latent and active TB patients. Some of the prose needs polishing, relying heavily on parenthetical inserts, which should be converted to prose. In terms of a global view, work is needed to reflect more geographic regions than the UK. Sandy 17:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
      • More: some of the data needs to be verified and updated. For example, WHO says 1.7 million deaths annually, while CDC says 2 million. There are some specific incidence numbers from a media report which I can't match to any TB database numbers: relying on media reports in scientific articles should be avoided per reliable source guidelines. It would be better to cite that data from a health organization, and I'm wondering why so much specific data is given for London and not for other areas of the world? If it's because London provides an example of what is happening in European urban areas, that needs to be better explained and explored. Sandy 17:20, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I've added more refs and a few figures. A lot of copy-editing is still needed. Sandy, you're doing a brilliant job. TimVickers 05:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm just doing the menial stuff: your images and refs are great. I was going to see how far you could get before having another look at the prose. Sandy 05:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The article is now fully referenced. TimVickers 19:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
    • If you're done for a while, I'll run through it next: don't want to get in your way. Sandy 19:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Some general notes as I'm sorting through the article:
    • History can probably be better referenced (was probably originally referenced) from the books now listed in Further reading.
    • Treatment, prognosis and diagnosis still need basic, referenced, summary rewrites/overviews.
    • The article is poorly wiki-linked, but that work should be deferred until rewrite is finished.
    • I'm adding cite tags as I go through it: I still don't understand the preponderance of UK-specific information, and the lack of information relevant to sectors of the world where TS is very big problem.
    • A physician needs to make sure "other names" and "symptoms" sections jive.
    • I've added inline comments, questions: do a text search on <!

Sandy 20:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment I feel the "Other names" section will need inline citations. Also the introduction to the "Prevention" section will need citations (as I'm curious as to where the three priority strategies came from). Good luck to editors - one could be adding inline citations until Doomsday (good work by the way)! LuciferMorgan 18:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
    • eeek, I feel like other names fall into the realm of general information. Maybe we can get an opinion from a Wikiphysician. TimVickers has been working his tail off on the article. Tim, where do you think it stands? I wish we could get a fresh set of eyes to look at it, to see what else needs to be done, but I haven't been able to entice anyone else over from WikiProject Medicine. Sandy 21:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd give it six or seven out of ten. Now all it needs is some rewriting for clarity and structure. TimVickers 21:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I still stick to my comment. The sections I requested citations for must have been unearthed somewhere, so should be able to be cited. LuciferMorgan 21:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, quite right. I've added citations for the beginning of the Prevention section and am going to be removing the strange focus on the UK. I also added refs for the Other Names section. TimVickers 21:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • FARC? TimVickers has made great progress, and I'd rate the article higher on FA standards than his seven out of ten: I give it an 8. But further review is needed, there's still some work to be done, shall we keep it moving to FARC, and encourage other physicians to review? The referencing is complete, quality of references are good, Tim and I have both worked at copy editing, but my remaining concerns are that we get a better overview of prognosis, diagnosis and treatment, another set of eyes on copyedit, and the blessings of several WikiPhysicians on content. If we can get someone to do this small bit of remaining work, we could possibly avoid FARC. Sandy 05:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Is there anything else you need me to do Sandy? TimVickers 16:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I think you've done a stellar job so far, and don't see that there's much else you can do. I'm not sure what's going on with the recent anon edits, though—keeping the article on your watchlist might be helpful? Since I'm a layperson, I'm having a hard time sorting out vandalism from legitimate edits. Sandy 16:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
OK, I'll keep an eye on things. Just drop me a note if you need anything else done. TimVickers 17:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - All inline citations citing web sources need the date they were last accessed. If they then become dead links, they can be retrieved more easily using the Wayback Machine on www.archive.org. Minor work needs to be done to the article (a few more cites here and there maybe), but insufficient enough for me to vote it for FARC. I think this article should avoid FARC. LuciferMorgan 15:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Retrieval dates or PMID added. Need ISBN for Britannical 1911. TimVickers 16:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I've pestered the Medical Projects and Wikiphysicians, and no one has objected, so considering that the article is now organized, referenced, cruft cleaned up, and copy-edited, I think we can avoid FARC. I am surprised at the level of vandalism this article gets, though, and hope several people will keep it on their watch lists. TimVickers is to be commended for a job well done and a lot of hard work! I'll leave a message asking SamSara if he's satisfied. Sandy 12:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

It's at the level where if I came across it, I wouldn't nominate it for FAR. On the other hand, I did come across one piece of weak prose in the lead, which I fixed, but I wonder whether there is more. I don't have time to read through all of it again just now. So if everybody else is happy, we can leave it at this. Regards, Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I took that word out once, too :-) I'm not necessarily happy, but I'm not necessarily willing to FARC it. More opinions needed. Sandy 15:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Well I've stated I feel this one's a keep without FARC. If anybody does have actionable actions though, I urge admins to hold before FARCing so someone can address them. LuciferMorgan 17:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern is insufficient citations. Marskell 09:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I think that concern has now been addressed, the article now has 65 independent citations, the large majority to peer-reviewed journals. TimVickers 16:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I would agree. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I also agree citations are fine. Unless another WikiPhysician appears and says the article isn't comprehensive for any reason, I'll be a Keep on this one. Sandy 01:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/e/a/Wikipedia%7EFeatured_article_review_Tuberculosis_6052.html"