Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Collaboration of the Week

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] What sorts of articles we are looking for?

If you have any suggestions for this new project, please bring them up. I'm planning to run this similar to the other collaborations. For now, I think a fortnight is better until we know how much participation we will have.

One question to answer is what sorts of articles we are looking for. I see four categories:

  1. Nonexistent articles
  2. Very short articles/stubs
  3. Longer articles that need expansion or are disorganized
  4. Well-developed articles

The short articles and longer articles, I think, are good candidates—we can expand them and/or reorganize them. But do we want to also take on article requests? I'm inclined to say that articles should be at least stubs before we take them on. And finally, what about well-developed articles? I know I've written some pretty complete articles that I nevertheless would appreciate some peer review on. Should we try to tackle those too or should we wait for now? — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:42, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

I was asked anonymously to look at breast implants. I must say I was expecting an excuse for collecting soft porn, but actually the entry has had a lot of work, mostly by people I don't recognise because I've been laying low for a while. Is anyone here already involved in this? I'm no expert but its gotta be close to featured article status. Mattopaedia 12:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] suggestions

hey, glad to see you've been hard at work doing this page! I think this is a great entry subject into preclinical medicine. If you could maybe create a COTW tag for the actual pages that are nominated so that people browsing it would be able to come to this page?

Also, one of my main concerns is still the organisation of the medical pages. With your agreement I think I'm going to start a preclinical project which links to this COTW. It will mainly be sorting the organisational problems and highlight the work we do here and be an anchor for discussing structural problems. I would love for some crosslinking between this page, organisational page and the original wikidoc page... what do you think? PhatRita 14:25, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for joining up! Actually, I did create a tag: it's {{MCOTFnom}}. I added it for you. Feel free to edit the directions if you can make it more clear. Starting a preclinical project sounds like a great idea if you're up to the task of organizing it. Count me in (in a limited manner, though, due to unfortunate time constraints). — Knowledge Seeker দ 20:26, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

-

Suggestion: You might want to consider listing unsuccessful nominations on Wikipedia:Pages needing attention/Health science. It might get the word out to those not aware of MCOTF that those articles need work, too. Edwardian 05:27, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

That's a great idea, Edwardian. That might also be a good source of articles to nominate here. By the way, your participation in this project would be welcome as well! — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:03, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fortnight or week?

Originally, I set this up as a Collaboration of the Fortnight because I was unsure how much participation there would be. But given the quick improvement in Human physiology (due, in large part, to User:Alteripse's great effort). If this keeps up, should we switch to a weekly collaboration instead of a fortnightly? On a related note, remember that you can vote for as many proposals as you like. if there is enough interest, we can go up on the vote requirements so that too many nominations don't clutter the page. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:04, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

First of all, I warmly greet this project and will surely contribute (as much as time permits ;)). If there is much interest, we could begin by picking up two topics per fortnight, as it allows one to contribute to the one he prefers/knows better. --Eleassar my talk 11:48, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
That sounds like a good idea, Eleassar. Perhaps we can pick a new one each week, but let each collaboration run for two weeks, so there will always be two projects running? — Knowledge Seeker দ 19:33, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

I think we have enough interest to switch this to a weekly project. Besides, I think interest will probably die down towards the end of the week (considering the editing may often start on nominated articles); previous collaborations can always be renominated later on. I hope the interest level stays high; at some point, maybe we could do two articles during the week. — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:23, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

I think, also, that I will move this to Wikipedia:Medicine Collaboration of the Week. The current name (Wikipedia:WikiProject Clinical medicine/MCOTF) is a bit unwieldy (and we tackle both clinical and preclinical articles here). I'll update all links, of course. — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:27, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Name sounds much better! The candidates category still needs to be updated btw. --WS 02:22, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Veto power

I propose granting three people (perhaps Knowledge Seeker, JFW, and PhatRita) the power to veto a nomination by a 3-0 or 2-1 vote. Obviously, editors are free to edit any article when and where they see fit, but I'm concerned that the Collaboration could be "hijacked" for others' pet-projects. (See my comments under the Psychotherapy discussion.) Edwardian 04:13, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Edwardian - I think that might be a bit drastic. I left some comments on Psychotherapy on the main page. I think your language was very strong - perhaps there's a more diplomatic way to go about this? Mr.Bip 05:44, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
It's not clear to me what reason you have to assume bad faith in this proposal. The collaboration is not a sandbox, it cannot be "hijacked"-- nothing prevents anyone from simply not participating. The belief that psychotherapy is not appropriate for this collaboration is mistaken; if anything what the article needs is a more medical and scientific angle than it currently represents. Regardless, if you personally do not approve, I would reccomend, instead of attempting to create a means to remove articles from the list and prevent a small group from being overridden, simply not voting for the article. siafu 06:18, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
I apologize if you think I have assummed bad faith, however, I believe I am allowed to make suggestions that might help this Project run more smoothly. This Project is in its infancy and I think it needs some mechanism to ensure that nominations qualify for its stated purpose: To collaborate on "topics that may either relate to medical basic sciences (anatomy, biochemistry, and so on), or clinical medicine (illnesses, surgical procedures, and so on)". I do not think the Psychotherapy and Mental illness articles are in line with the stated goals of this Project and I made comment of such in the appropriate Comment section. Am I not allowed to do that? Is the Comment section reserved for only those who agree with the nomination? Edwardian 06:43, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
You are certainly allowed to make suggestions and comments and whatever you choose, but the reason I think you have assumed bad faith is because that's exactly what you presented in your commentary. In short: "These are outsiders, they haven't contributed before, we can't trust them to take part in the project, we need to be able to just veto this before it gets a chance to succeed or fail on its own merits". If that's not what you meant, perhaps an apology would be in order, given that that is what you said (e.g, instead of trying to remind participants that it's important to collaborate on all projects instead of just the one they've suggested, you simply assumed it wouldn't happen). As to whether Psychotherapy merits inclusion in the MCOTW, you may be unfamiliar with the topic, but such psychiatrists still do carry MDs, and psychotherapy involves such medically irrelevant areas as pharmacology, alzheimer's disease, narcolepsy, and neuroscience. If clinical psychology is not clinical, and mental illness is not illness, where exactly would you suggest this would be more appropriate? siafu 16:41, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
Your summary of my comments is not accurate. There are at least three separate issues here. 1) I've commented at least twice, this being the third, that I think there needs to be some mechanism to ensure that nomination qualify for the stated goals of the Project. My suggestion has nothing to do with anyone being an "outsider" or whether than have contributed previously or whether they can be "trusted" to contribute to future articles, If my suggestion is not a good one to deal with that potential problem, or others do not even see it as being a potential problem, so be it. I have voiced my concern and I think a few others are now aware of it. 2) I've commented at least as many times that I do not think the general topic of Psychotherapy qualifies for the stated goal of the Project, and acknowledge that others think it does. I agree that psychotherapy involves such medically relevant (your sarcasm in the use of "irrelevant" is noted but not necessary) "areas as pharmacology, alzheimer's disease, narcolepsy, and neuroscience", but those were not the specific articles that were nominated. Nor did I suggest that "clinical psychology is not clinical, and mental illness is not illness". In my opinion, the key word in "clinic medicine", referring to the stated goal of the Project, is "medicine" not "clinical". Specific topics such as "the medical management of mental illness" or "the biochemical foundations of mental illness" are probably better tackled by this Project than the vast topic of "mental illness". 3) I voiced concern, and my reason for that concern, why I do not think you will stick around to help with the Project long-term. Although time will tell if my concern was warranted, I will remove those comments from the Project page in that they certainly do project "bad faith" on my part. I again apologize. Edwardian 18:17, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
It's not so inaccurate as you imply to read "others", "hijacked", and "pet project" as taking an "us and them" outlook. Moreover the "mechanism to ensure that nomination qualify" is the vote process itself. I was rather insulted by the assumption of bad faith that was the reception when a bunch of new users come to a new collaboration with a new idea; I may have responded in something other than the most productive fashion. Apologies for that. Nonetheless this interaction has managed to kill my enthusiasm for collaborating here; there's plenty to do without having to pull teeth to contribute, and I've withdrawn my support for Psychotherapy in order to satiate fears of the project being "hijacked". siafu 15:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Although I believe you have inferred things from my comments that I did not imply, I'm sorry that you feel insulted and do not wish to help out here. I hope you will reconsider. My opinion is still that the Psychotherapy and Mental illness articles are to broad to be tackled by this project, however, I think there are plenty of related topics as you earlier suggested that could be addressed here. It would be great if they were nominated so we could work together on them. Cheers. Edwardian 03:08, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
Hi there. I think you are well-intentioned, Edward, and don't doubt your good faith. It does appear to me that veto powers are entirely unnecessary, however; a candidate article that did not have the support of editors who work regularly on medical articles simply wouldn't attain the MCOW for that week. An article which many contributors felt was in need of immediate work (or sustained heavy-lifting) on the other hand probably would. You, and every other editor, is free to voice their opinions on the suitability or desirability of an article for MCOW status. As democratic impulses are unlikely to be constrained by this simple arrangement, and as the MCOW decisions are unlikely to suffer as a result, I feel regulations granting veto powers, et cetera will be unhelpful at best, detrimental at worst. It's the libertarian in me, I guess.→Encephalon | Ϟ | ζ 07:06:01, 2005-08-07 (UTC)
Thanks everyone for bringing up some good points. Edwardian's concern about the potential for hijacking a collaboration is a very real issue, and one I thought about when setting up project. Similar to what happened with the Psychotherapy nomination, an editor could get several other editors together and they could all support a given nomination. With a small, new project like this one, the influx of new voters could easily overwhelm the previous participants—witness the seven supporting votes in this case, a few shy of the 10 people on the "participant" list, and none of whom have participated in the collaboration before. As matter currently stand, it will be next week's MCOTW. Now in this case I feel that psychotherapy is an appropriate nomination. If it had been a nomination, say, for Spork, I would probably have simply removed the nomination myself. For borderline cases, bringing up objections in the comments section, as Edwardian did, would be appropriate. Without setting up formal rules, I would imagine that in a controversial case, the opinions of some of the longer-active participants would carry some more weight, as it is throughout Wikipedia. Of course, in obvious cases, anyone can remove the nomination—we don't have to wait for a nomination to expire before removing it. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:48, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
I will modify the instructions to state that if one has concerns about a topic falling within the scope of this project, one may bring them up in the comments section. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:52, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Votes required

Knowledge seeker, thanks for your comment over at SIRS talk. If it's not too much trouble, would you mind explaining how the number of votes that must be met before a certain date for a given COW is determined? I'm rather new to all the COWs and Improvements of the week. Am I right in thinking that the article with highest vote gets the COW on the fixed COW day (which in the case of MCOW I think is Wed?), and all "losers" get to stay on for a certain period of time if they can garner a certain number of votes more? Who decides these numbers? Much thanks.—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 15:50:30, 2005-08-08 (UTC)

Hi, Encephalon; it's no trouble at all. I tried to explain it at Wikipedia:Medicine Collaboration of the Week#Voting, but it is a bit complicated. When setting up this collaboration, I basically patterned it after the other collaborations—their method of voting seemed better than anything else I could think of. So yes, nominations and voting go on continuously. Then, on Wednesday, whichever nomination has the most votes is selected for that week. If there is a tie, I take the one that was nominated first. The choice of Wednesday was more or less arbitrary; most of the collaborations use Sunday, but I like the idea of being able to work on an article through the weekend. Of course, this, like any of the parameters, is open to discussion.
Of course, there has to be a way to remove nominations, too, or else the page would quickly fill up. One possibility would be to remove all the "losers" each week, but that wouldn't be as good as the current method, in my opinion. Basically, each nomination has an expiry time: it starts out with an expiry time of one week. In other words, if it is not selected for that week's collaboration by then, it will be removed. This has happened once so far: my nomination for Connective tissue disease (see expired nominations). For every two votes a nomination earns, its expiry time is extended by one week. For instance, take the nomination for Pneumonia by Alex.tan. It was nominated on August 4th, with expiry on August 11th. When Quadell added his vote (the second vote), it got extended until August 18th; that is, it had until the 18th to be selected or it would be removed. Mr.Bip and I added our support and its expiry was pushed to August 25th. David Ruben and you supported and the expiry was moved to September 1st. Kpjas also supported; if another user supports, the expiry will move to September 8th. Make sense? Finally, as to who decides these numbers, the answer is that I do—only because no one else has been interested in the mechanics of the collaboration (at least not until the current controversy). I started out with 2 votes required for the first week, and 1 for each week thereafter, because I had no idea how popular this collaboration might turn out and wanted to start low. But it's had a good turnout, and I soon increased the requirement to 2 a week. And it may have to be adjusted again; basically, we want to keep a reasonable amount of nominations here. If it's too low, or if people make a large number of nominations, the number of nominations on the page will become unwieldy. If it's too high; too many nominations will expire before getting selected and there won't be anything from which to pick. (For comparison, WP:COTW requires five votes per week, versus our two.) If you have any suggestions regarding changing these numbers or any other modifications, I'd love to hear them. — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:51, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
Got it. Thanks, KS. Re: Wednesday and the details of the voting system, I've no problem with these at all; the process seems to be working pretty well. You've done a fantastic job organizing this, if I may say so. Incidentally, one aspect of the COW system that I've noticed is how it forces editors to prioritize. I think every one of us, if we had limitless time and resources, would probably answer "support" to almost every nominated article: most still have room for some improvement. But I find myself deliberating as follows: "Of course Carcinogenesis deserves more than one miserable line, but surely it's not more important than SIRS? If I support Carcinogenesis now, will it mean relegating one more deserving article to history's compost heap? Although if you think about it, isn't it more important for WP to have a good article on Carcinogens than on SIRS? Who the hell consults WP for SIRS anyway — it's not the sort of thing about which you lounge around at home carefully considering your treatment options. But if you think about it, many shock-related articles are kind of f***ked at the moment, whereas at least Carcinogenesis has the company of a decent Cancer. Of course, the real question is, what are the implications of all this for Biochemistry? And miserable H5N1? And gawdawful personal life, which, as you can see, is pretty limited right now?"—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 06:43:33, 2005-08-09 (UTC)
Encephalon - Ha! I think I can sympathize with that thought process ;) Mr.Bip 06:53, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
Yeah. It's the old story. So much to do, so little time to do it. I've been meaning to tell you by the way, kudos on the Asthma work. I didn't participate in it because, having been sufficiently mortified at the state of H5N1, I've been personally working on a complete top-down bottom-up rewrite of the thing. But Asthma has been in good hands — and of course Dr. DR knows exactly what he's talking about. I haven't read it completely, but I'd wager it's much improved.—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 07:07:40, 2005-08-09 (UTC)
Same for me as well. My list of articles to fix was growing far too fast, and some needed much more work than I could handle on my own. Prioritizing which articles need work first was the primary reason I wanted to set this up. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:34, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Infection

OK - I made three nominations already today, so I'll ask you guys if you think this deserves a nomination: Infection. The one paragraph written for this article is quite good, but I would expect a term like infection to be a much longer article outlining the various kinds of infections possible, with lots of redirects. So, for the doctors out there: do you think this article is fine the way it is, or does it need a lot more work to include a more clinical perspective? Mr.Bip 05:14, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I think Infection could definitely use our help. But I'd suggest holding off on nominating it for now. As you mention, you've been making a lot of nominations: there are currently eight active nominations, and in the absence of further voting, only three will ultimately be selected as collaborations. Of course, perhaps we'll always have a lot of nominations, and there will never be a "dry spell". So ultimately it's up to your judgment. And finally, another possibility is that if there is enough participation on this collaboration, we can increase to two articles a week, so that people may work on one if they're uninterested in the other. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:43, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
KS - I can get a little over-zealous when I get rolling :) I've been trying to find important articles that desperately need improvement, and there are quite a few. I think we have our work cut out for us. Even if some of these articles don't get picked, we should keep them in a list of stuff to get done one day, or even re-nominate them in a dry spell. Important question: is there an easy way of seeing how many articles link to a certain article? I think we should definitely prioritize according to the most-linked-to articles. Mr.Bip 06:53, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
No worries—overzealousness is good. And yes, the expired nominations will definitely be a source for renomination if the project page is looking a little dry (although that probably won't happen for quite a while). And of course even if my nominations don't ultimately get selected, I still plan to work on them on my own. To see what links to an article, just click on the "What links here" link in the toolbox on the left. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:39, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Asthma — peer review?

First of all, let me say that I am extremely proud of the work this collaboration is doing. I am very impressed with how much the articles are improving each week. I only regret that I haven't been able to put as much time in as I'd like—as an intern on my general medicine rotation, my Wikipedia participation has dropped to its all-time low. (I updated the collaboration to Pneumonia last night while on call at the hospital, after working up my patients and before taking a short nap.) Asthma really improved last week; I plan to perhaps work on it a bit more and then I was considering nominating it for peer review. Even if it's not ready to be featured yet, we will get some experience as to what is needed for future articles, and I think that (ultimately), featured status is the desired goal of our collaborations. I'm sure previous collaborations are on your watchlists; perhaps once we get fully established, we could nominated articles for peer review once the week has finished, and keep working on them to bring them to featured status. Anyway, just some thoughts—thanks again; it's great to see the medical community (and friends) coming together to help out like this! — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:47, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

The nomination has been made: Wikipedia:Peer review/Asthma/archive1. Hopefully we'll get some good feedback. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:44, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
Avocado has left a useful layperson's criticism of the article here.—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 04:41:41, 2005-08-14 (UTC)
One user has also left feedback on Peer Review. I'll work on incorporating both their suggestions. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:45, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mergers and coordinated writing

There are some articles that may need to be tackled in a coordinated fashion, because the topic on Wikipedia involves several articles. I am not sure if KS or the group believe this sort of task is suitable for the MCOW, so I thought I'd just post here so everyone can discuss it if they like. Two examples:

[edit] 1. Residency

Currently the subject of two different articles, Medical residency and Residency (medicine). Merger tag was placed about 5 weeks ago, no discussion or move since. Also, JFW noted in edit summary that it is USA focused (actually, US and Canada, who both share the same type of system). Should the merged article also talk about GME in the UK, Europe, Japan, Australia etc?

  • Yes it should include other countries models of Medical Training, partly for breadth, but also so comparisons can be made (no point having separate articles for US/Canada Resident, UK SHO/Registrars and whatever in other countries). Would suggest general term we can all agree upon and then a series of redirects to this (for UK: House Officer, HO, Preregistration house officer, PRHO, SHO, Senior house officer, Registrar, Specialised registrar). As a GP in teh community, somewhat out of touch with hospital training, which has just undergone major reorganisation in the UK, leaving, so the media reports, junior doctors without jobs. David Ruben 19:10, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 2. Immunosuppression, immunosuppressive drug

The first article concerns therapeutic suppression of the immune system. It is very brief. Can be expanded enormously (if this is felt to be appropriate). The second article is on the drugs. It is quite long. Eleassar has taken the lead in editing it, and placed both Attention & Clean up tags on it in May. Should the two remain separate? Should the first be expanded? The second made briefer? Should they be combined in one article that discusses the whole issue of immunosuppression? Regards—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 04:41:41, 2005-08-14 (UTC)

I'd like to hear if anyone else has an opinion. I think they both are suitable for the MCOTW, and of course voting will determine when/if we actually tackle them. However, I think that both have a couple issues to be worked out first. Regarding residency, all we need do first is decide if they should be merged (I think so) and what the actual title should be. In the second case, it would be prudent to discuss the scope/merging of the two articles first, because it seems a waste to me to use up part of the week in discussions. I'm not sure where the discussion should take place: on the article discussion pages, or perhaps at the Doctors' Mess? — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:54, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Collaboration on articles

Here's an idea: perhaps there is a way for editors to get together to collaborate on an article without having to put it up for a MCOTW vote. So, say I want some help writing up an article on Notch signaling, but it's not a big enough deal to put it up for a vote. I can post my collaboration request on a subpage of MCOTW and find one, maybe two editors who want to patch the article up with me. Or, just get ideas about how to make it better. This would be distinct from the MCOTW talk page, which I assume is more about MCOTW business than working out the details of articles. Sound like this could be worthwhile? Mr.Bip 07:04, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Good idea in principle, but I think needs be on talk:Clinical Medicine not MCOTW.
    • There already is a section for articles we're starting on, but need leaving alone by others until we have had a chance to lay down the initial article entry (wp talk:WikiProject Clin.Med.#Topics we are currently working on This is a list of current projects. Individuals may not want to review them yet, since they may not be complete).
    • At the end of the writing process there is a request to review completed articles (wp talk:WikiProject Clin.Med.#Things up for review).
    • So there is a need for the stage inbetween - ie incomplete articles we are working on and request collaboration with. MCOTW seems wrong place for this, and logically should be between these two sections of Talk:WikiProject Clinical medicine. Perhaps there should be a brief entry in MCOTW pointing out these authoring/collaboration/review sections and so guide people there.
      David Ruben 19:34, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
      • I like your idea, Mr.Bip, but I agree with Dr. Ruben that this idea probably doesn't belong as part of MCOTW itself. Wikipedia:WikiProject Clinical medicine would seem to be the logical place. However, there are two small problems. One, it would be nice to have a central place to go for both clinical and pre-clinical articles. Two, the WikiProject seems somewhat of a mess to me—there is so much information just arranged linearly. I know there was a peer review section there, but I was wondering what people thought about creating a Wikipedia:Medical peer review (or "Medicine peer review")? It could be run similar to Wikipedia:Peer review (although reviewers could just fix up the articles themselves, or leave comments if they liked). I think it would be better as a separate page—I'm not a big fan of the peer review as an earlier part of the talk page. I think it would be easier to access a separate page and I think a central page for both clinical and preclinical medicine. Of course, people could continue to list their projects on the Doctors' Mess; this would serve to complement that project. And of course, I could set it up and maintain it. I know that I have several articles I've worked on that are too obscure and too well-developed for MCOTW, but that I would certainly appreciate feedback/assistance on. Thoughts? — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:37, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
        • KS - I think Wikipedia: Medical peer review is close to what I'm imagining. What I'm thinking of is closer to Wikipedia: Medical article workshop - in essence, a talk page where we ask for help/input on an article, and people get in contact with each other about articles they share an interest in. I think that if the Doctor's Mess on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Clinical_medicine were more active, it would be the same thing I'm thinking about. Who knows, maybe we could do this, and no one would use it. I would just like to see the biological-science-inclined Wikipedians more centralized around a page where people say which articles are in the crucible at the moment. Mr.Bip 17:44, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I've implement a major change as the (wp talk:WikiProject Clin.Med.#Topics we are currently working on and wp talk:WikiProject Clin.Med.#Things up for review all got moved into an archive subpage of WikiProject Clinical medicine, yet these are active notices between us of what we are working on or wish peer reviewing (ie active stuff not old archive)!
    • I moved the whole lot from archive to Wikipedia:WikiProject Clinical medicine/Collaboration and added the inbetween stage that I discussed above. Hence there are now 3 stages: 1) articles we are starting on and wish left alone by others whilst a basic structure is created 2) articles we actively would like partipation with and 3) completed articles ready for peer review.
    • Please comment if you think I was rash, but we'd lost all direct access to individual aticles 'work-in-progress' notification between ourselves.

David Ruben 00:42, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

DR - I applaud your boldness :) I should have done something like this, rather than whine about it. I think the page you made is exactly what we need, and added my own articles to it. I'm adding the new page to the navigation box at the Clinical project. Good job! Mr.Bip 02:06, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I thought I commented here yesterday on this but I can't find it here, nor in the other talk page (must be loosing it!). This was very well done, DR. Incidentally, I'm the chap who refactored the doctor's lounge. I did it because it was huge, so much so that it wasn't loading properly. The stuff I moved hadn't been touched in months, in most cases at least a year. So I was hoping no harm was done. We should probably maintain separate pages for keeping extensive lists and for making quick comments, or we'll run into the same problem again. Which is why this move of yours is great. Lastly, as a great fan of simplicty, I tweaked the Nav box. You guys don't mind, right? (You do? Well, I guess that's too bad then. ;) )—Encephalon | ζ  17:17:01, 2005-08-20 (UTC)


Thank you Knowledge Seeker, some good points raised on the article collaboration page (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Clinical medicine/Collaboration)

  1. Change name from 'WikiProject Clinical medicine/Collaboration' as too similar to 'Medicine Collaboration of the Week'  ?
  2. Get rid the the initial section on articles being worked upon (for which others should allow the individual to work-up) ?
  3. Off-puting, to those new to wikipedia, to have to add their name as a heading to the lists, before describing articles they might wish joint working with others on.
  4. Many of individual's entries have not been recently updated.

A solution might be to change the current structure from ' ==Individual's name== / *[[Page]] discussion ' to just a simple list of ' *[[Page]] discussion ~~~~ '. The use of signatures ('~~~~') is then both easier for everyone to use, and has the advantage that the entry is clearly date-stamped. However this would loose the multiple sub-sections and the ability to edit just ones own bit.

Please everyone, comment below or on the relevant talk page - David Ruben 20:19, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Old MCOTWs

I think MCOTW is going really well, with good improvements to the topics so far chosen. The banner for MCOTW obviously only stays with an article for its one week. Is there though, in wipidedia, any system used to then highlight a topic has having undergone a collaborative improvement?

  • this is not about a contributor keeping an "eye" on an article ('my watchlist' does this)
  • nor is this to suggest "locking" the article (wikipedia allows anyone to edit)

What I wonder though is if any wikiprojects leave a residual banner on articles to help highlight to future readers that there has been a group/peer-review/collaborative input:

  1. may give the reader a greater assurance that the article has a depth & breadth to its content (as any encyclopaedia would wish) ?
  2. may direct a future reader to directly ask a collaborative group to review a past article if it seems to need updating ?
  3. attract people to read the article (will MCOTW have a list of all past articles) ?
  4. help people look at the articles and consider nominating for featured article status?

David Ruben 01:00, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. I'll make a template to put on previous collaborations. There already is a history of previous collaborations; I'll see if I can make it more prominent. — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:45, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
It's up: {{MCOTWprev}}. I'm not too thrilled with the wording, so please feel free to edit it. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:17, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed change for next week's MCOTW

If you have not already, please see Wikipedia:Medicine Collaboration of the Week#Biochemistry for a discussion of switching the order of the selections for the next two weeks. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:16, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Asthma is a featured article candidate!

I just nominated Asthma on WP:FAC. Please keep an eye on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Asthma and help the article meet any objections or suggestions for improvements! Thanks! — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:09, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

I've just finished touch-ups. I must say I'm very proud of what the group has done for that article, in particular Dr. Ruben and Mr. Bip, and of Seeker's leadership. I think it deserves FA status.—Encephalon | ζ  08:22:28, 2005-08-24 (UTC)

[edit] Systematic covarage of topics

MCOTW is going really well, and brillant that Asthma getting to FAC status. Topics that fail to gain sufficient votes will be forgotton about and risk remaining stubby or of poor quality. Taking a random walk through WP, I came across the WikiProject:Chemistry, they have set up a very daunting list of chemicals and are systematialy adding articles, see the list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals/Organization. If we had more members, should something similar be on WikiProject:Medicine ? David Ruben 03:23, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I saw that, David. They're frighteningly efficient. I'd be surprised if they haven't many more members than we do. Still, we should seriously look into setting up something like that for ourselves. We could probably steal their table too—I'm sure they won't mind. :)—Encephalon | ζ  01:01:06, 2005-08-29 (UTC)
I think it would be a good idea, provided it were maintained. I would gladly contribute but I wouldn't have time to set it up or play any role aside from peripheral, I'm afraid (how do you all find the time, anyway?). Don't forget that if you're bored, you can take a look at the graveyard and work on any of the articles there (or resubmit them for WP:MCOTW (I still think SIRS would be a good collaboration topic, but I plan to tackle it myself at some point. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:27, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Anti-war#List of pages covered by the project has a nice format for a table which we could all edit. Would this be better under Wikipedia:WikiProject Clinical medicine or a parent Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine? — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:59, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Maybe a list of most referenced articles would be a nice start. See the science project, they have a list of articles referenced more than 500 times. [1] Put the 100 most referenced articles in a table and make sure they are all excellent quality.

My tupence worth, if you were to address articles I'd do it in the order of occurence ( in population that is)Leevanjackson 00:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Time to slow down?

As some have pointed out, we have been working pretty hard, and I am afraid if we keep up this pace we may burn out. In retrospect, nominating Asthma for WP:FAC was a bad idea on my part while we were still active on the MCOTW. I've been thinking about ways to rectify this in the future. I think if we are going to nominate one of our MCOTW articles to be on FAC, we should not have to divide our attention. I am not sure how best to accomplish this; the best I can think of is to renominate them on MCOTW, and if they get selected, we'll work on FAC stuff for that week (and therefore won't have another article to also work on at the same time). The second concern I have is just in general, FAC stuff aside, are we going too fast? I am starting a new rotation and hope to have a little more free time, but I haven't been able to put much effort in the last few collaborations. What do you all think? There are a couple options. One, we could return to the fortnightly approach. Another option is to take off one week per month. Perhaps the first week of each month we would not select a new article, but rather use the time to work on old collaborations or to work on our own projects. Or just to take a break. Would that be a good idea? Of course, any nominations active at that time would automatically be extended by a week. I'm not sure what to call it either. Maybe a week of respite? — Knowledge Seeker দ 15:04, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

KS - I hear you. I think getting an article to FAC is a big effort, and something which I think has distracted us from the other MCOTW projects since asthma was nominated. Honestly, I would rather see this project do a smaller volume of high quality work than a larger volume of shallow work - I think others will agree. Perhaps if we set the bar for each article closer to where asthma is now, we could go back to MCOTF - except that we'd have to have significant support for each nomination or else we'll lose the focus and participation of certain members of the collaboration. Thoughts? Mr.Bip 04:35, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
PS - On this topic, I think there's no way I'm going to be able to do my big biochemistry rewrite this week. I'm so swamped with my new job and school, but I really care about that article. Suggestions? Mr.Bip 04:35, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

All right, unless there are any objections, next week will officially be a week of respite, and we can decide what to do from there. Mr.Bip, take care of your real world obligations. I'll do what I can on Biochemistry, and you can work on it later, renominating it if you wish. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:42, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

This is Truly Most Awesome, Seeker. :)—encephalon | ζ  08:29:37, 2005-09-05 (UTC)

[edit] Delay Pneumonia one week?

According to the established procedure, Pneumonia should be our collaboration article this week. However, I don't think it's ready for FAC—I'm sorry; I've started work in the ED and I got really busy. I should have time to work on it the next few days (I hope!) and hopefully we can get it to FAC next week? I'm inclined to keep it on here for now and instead we'll tackle Medical record this week—what do others think? If there are no objections, I'll promote that one later today. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:30, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Time to move on?

I think we have slowed down enough now, and it is time to move on to the next article. Especially with 2 more participants adding their name to the list in the last few days, I think it is really important to keep this active...! --WS 01:37, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Certainly. I had slowed down the Collaboration because I feared people were burning out. I know I have found myself with severely restricted time as my intern year progresses and have done little to contribute on Wikipedia recently (I didn't help at all on the last collaboration). I still want Pneumonia to become a featured article, but I haven't yet finished addressing the comments from Peer review, so how about we choose Multiple sclerosis as our next collaboration? — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Sounds great to me. --WS 01:37, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

That was kind of weird - MCOTW just changed to MS from medical record without much info on the front page. Are there easy to identify time frames for these changes? InvictaHOG 10:34, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

What other changes would you like to see on the front page? Typically the only changes are the box at the top announcing the current MCOTW, and removal of the successful nomination section. The topic typically changes on Wednesdays; however, since the participants appeared to be burning out, I had slowed the pace of MCOTW a bit. With several new participants, perhaps we will be able to tackle articles with renewed vigor. If you want to know exactly when MCOTW changes, adding the MCOTW page to your watchlist will show you when the successful nomination is removed from discussion, or you may watch Wikipedia:Medicine Collaboration of the Week/current which will always carry the name of the active article. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:00, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Incidentally, how do people feel about tackling Pneumonia now? I really haven't been able to tackle all the peer review comments, but perhaps if we all work together we can get it to FAC? — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:23, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I think I was mostly just confused by the dates not being updated and there being such a lag between discussion and movement. As for pneumonia, sounds great to me. The broad category topics are harder, though. Maybe we can alternate between types of disease (like pneumonia and hepatitis) or terms in medicine (like medical record and residency) and specific diseases like multiple sclerosis, hepatitis C, etc? It's nice to learn a disease entity as well as I learned MS! InvictaHOG 14:47, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Pneumonia sounds fine to me. And in the mean time we can also tackle any issues raised on the multiple sclerosis featured article candidate page. Oh, and I have added a nice todo list to pneumonia's talk page a few days ago, I think that really worked very well for multiple sclerosis. --WS 15:19, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Congratulations!

First of all, congratulations to all who worked on getting Multiple sclerosis featured. What a fine accomplishment! Second, I think we are ready to return to our weekly format; what do you think? And maybe suspending operations while we have a FAC going—any open nominations can have their expiry time bumped back a week while the FAC process goes on. Comments? And by the way, great job, InvictaHOG, for your incredible work on Pneumonia! — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:41, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I think that prostate cancer would be a nice article to tackle next - there are not any other well-designed pages featuring cancer and it would be nice to establish an example in an organ with little pathologic variety. After that, maybe Afib? It certainly works best with my schedule, too! I've rewritten the prostate cancer introduction. InvictaHOG 10:23, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Now that pneumonia is featured, how about switching to the next article right now instead of waiting until wednesday? I agree with InvictaHOG about doing prostate cancer first, despite atrium fibrillation having one vote more. I already started doing some edits on the article. --WS 21:09, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't mind starting the new article now, but I just want to avoid burnout—getting an article to featured status is hard work! Things are better now that we have so many more members but in the early weeks of the collaboration I think there was a lot of burnout, often with only one person doing the bulk of the work on an article. InvictaHOG, you've done some incredidble work on Pneumonia; are you sure you can keep up this pace without a break? Finally, selecting Prostate cancer before atrial fibrillation is fine with me too; I have no preference, but I think we should at least wait a few days for others' feedback. I think the best thing to do right now is that if anyone would like to start working on Prostate cancer right now, they may do so (as always, of course—you don't need a collaboration!) and if there are no objections, we'll formally pick it up next Wednesday. How does that sound? — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:55, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, any work on MCTOW has to happen before I go on the Bigelow service (inpatient medicine) in January. I'll have to take a break then! Until that time, this is a nice, relaxing, fun thing to do. I think there's no downside to having a MCOTW up even if no one is working on it. We work on it until it's ready for peer review/FAC/front page. No real need for a time limit or for any pressure on anyone. I think it would be valuable to establish a template for the various cancer pages and prostate cancer is probably the easiest common tumor to address. InvictaHOG 03:14, 20 November 2005 (UTC)


Stirling work guys n gals!

[edit] General thoughts about cancer

We're going to feel compelled to include information about cancer staging in pretty much every specific cancer article. This is important, but both takes up space and can be confusing at first glance. I think it might be nice to describe the stages in general terms and then have separate lists/articles for staging of each tumor with a common introduction which describes the TNM staging, etc. This will be especially helpful in something like breast cancer, which can describe several different tumor types. I dunno, just a thought looking at the various cancer pages. InvictaHOG 03:14, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Staging is different for every tumor type. Where I trained, invasive breast cancer had a minimal staging workup (chest X-ray and some liver enzymes). In contrast, colorectal cancer requires an abdominal CT and sometimes a PET. I think the articles should contain their own staging principles, but the whole concept of staging can probably be left into the relevant article(s) and linked from the disease entity pages. JFW | T@lk 16:05, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't think I clear in my description above. I think having an article like staging in prostate cancer linked under staging on the prostate cancer article might be preferable to having Stage I with a long description of what constitutes Stage I followed by Stage II, etc. in the article proper. As it now stands, it looks long, somewhat daunting, and still doesn't seem to give enough information in layman's terms. I dunno, it's just a thought. Breast cancer is another example. I think that the information should be in Wikipedia and should be complete. I think we should off-load large sections organically, just like we do in any other article. I just think that an early choice for off-loading would be the staging section! InvictaHOG 02:50, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree; sounds like a good idea. We can briefly summarize perhaps the prognosis or treatment of the various stages, and either put the TNM info in a table in the article or split it off to another article, preferably the latter if it can be developed well enough. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:12, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

The request is to describe not the clinical practice of staging, but the staging systems themselves. This turned out to be much easier than it may have seemed back in 2005: see cancer staging and TNM for examples. Some specific cancer articles still describe TNM though; perhaps someone here would like to track down and edit those articles? --Una Smith 14:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine

As discussed at Wikipedia talk:Medicine Collaboration of the Week#Systematic coverage of topics, it would be nice to have a place we can identify articles that need work, even though they may not be selected for the Collaboration. As I think I mentioned before at the Doctors' Mess, I have begun work to try to organize this at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine. I don't know the best place for this, but since I'd like it to include both clinical and pre-clinical topics, it didn't make sense to place it at either one, nor does it really fit at WP:MCOTW either. The design and inspiration come from Wikipedia:WikiProject Anti-war#List of pages covered by the projectand Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chemicals/Organization. Wikipedia:WikiProject Clinical medicine/top priority and Wikipedia:WikiProject Clinical medicine/categorizations will be useful in providing inspiration. I welcome any comments, suggestions, or assistance at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:37, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I think the most pressing cases should be kept in a list somewhere on the WikiProject page. At the moment, almost every medical article needs a lot of work, but there are some articles that stand out in their horribility. JFW | T@lk 00:04, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Main Page

Pneumonia's on the Main Page. Way to improve the visibility and quality of medical articles on Wikipedia! — Knowledge Seeker দ 00:53, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] MCOTW

Afib has been on awhile — I intend to work on it when I get time and get it to featured article status. However, the next month is going to be busy for me and it looks like work has stalled, so I was thinking others may want to move on to the next topic (AIDS has a lot of votes!) InvictaHOG 03:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Time to leave AIDS?

I just checked the history and found that on the 5th of February there was no change in the article and on the 6th of February a single category was added. Would it therefore be appropriate to now move on? --Oldak Quill 07:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure. We'll move to a new topic tomorrow then. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions needed on TS?

I'm not close to proposing Tourette syndrome for MCotW, but another editor suggested that I should check in here to better orient my efforts to head in that direction. (Disclaimer: I am not a medical professional, and not even a very good writer -- my interest is personal.) There is a new medical textbook due out in April, '06, which I expect will be a good one, so I hope to have the article in good shape soon after that. I would be grateful if folks here could look at and help me improve my To Do list on my userpage. Also, is there a psychiatry, neurology, or clinical psych group of people who may take an interest in the TS article? Thanks in advance! Sandy 16:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move on?

Shall we switch to a new topic? — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:58, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Scientific peer review

A scientific peer review has been started and we're looking for Wikipedians who are members of the scientific academic community to run for the board. If you want to give it a shot come over and post a little about yourself. New nominations are being accepted until the 00:00 on the 17th March.

The project aims to combine existing peer review mechanisms (Wikipedia peer review, featured article candidate discussion, article assessment, &c.) which focus on compliance to manual of style and referencing policy with a more conventional peer review by members of the scientific academic community. It is hoped that this will raise science-based articles to their highest possible standards. Article quality and factual validity is now Wikipedia's most important goal. Having as many errors as Britannica is not good–we must raise our standards above this. --Oldak Quill 18:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template position

Could you please use {{MCOTWcur}} on talk pages instead of in articles. That's not encyclopedic content and is not helpful for readers (including me) that print pages. Thanks very much! --Eleassar my talk 19:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I mean, if I read the printed article a month later, the article won't be COTW anymore. --Eleassar my talk 12:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
You're correct; the template should be used on the talk page. I'll clarify the directions. — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Keratoconus

The ophthalmic disorder keratoconus has been a featured article candidate for a little over a week. At present, comments on its candidate page have been generally favourable, subject to critiques being actioned satisfactorily. However, at present it would definitely benefit from comments by a wider number of editors. I would therefore say that if anyone here would care to visit its candidate page and comment on its candidature, or on ways that the article could be improved, it would be very welcome. --BillC 19:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to BillC's hard work, Keratoconus is a featured article! Please check it out and offer any insight.-AED 08:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] sunburn

would someone mind looking at the sunburn article? INAD but it seems some of the suggested treatments make things worse. Or maybe americans don't get badly sunburnt like us ozzies do (or is that, like pommie backpackers visiting australia do? ) Currently the treatments section worries me. this is a pretty everyday "affliction" but if a dermatologist (sorry about the spelling there!) could have a look and provide an online reference the article may become useful. TIA!Garrie 04:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Updating?

Does anyone update the nominations? Medicine has been the Medicine COTW for many weeks now... --Francisco Valverde 15:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I updated. :) And I'll in the future if you wish. NCurse work 17:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Template

In accordance with the new Medicine/Collaboration of the Week, I have created this template:

 Thank you for your support of the Medicine Collaboration of the Week.
This week Medicine in Ancient Greece was selected.
Hope you can help…

It is my first template and the idea is informing those who supported a nomination that their candidate has been elected. I would like to make it in the form {{MCOTWthanks}} but I do not know how to do this... If you could help or improve this template. --Francisco Valverde 19:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. Template:MCOTWthanks. I changed Medicine in Ancient Greece with Template:Collab-medicine. NCurse work 20:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

First: why do we need Medicine trophy box template into this page? Second: MCOTW is worthless if the voted article will improve nearly nothing. NCurse work 17:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Usually the more clinical articles, mostly disease articles, benefit a lot from being the mcotw. In my opinion articles like the current collaboration are not really good candidates, because it is not a topic most of us know a lot about (at least I know nothing more than is already in the article). When huntington or aortic dissection will get selected as the next collaboration, you will probably see a lot more activity. --WS 18:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I see now. Me too, I know more about aortic dissection then ancient medicine. :) NCurse work 18:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Collaboration week

I think that it is worth saying that the week of a collaboration runs from Sunday to Sunday clearly on the article page. The time (or approx time) on Sunday (if it is a Sunday) that the change over occurs should also be clear. Snowman 14:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Why is it so important. To talk frankly, I usually change it when I feel that the article changed a lot. :) But we can make a schedule. NCurse work 17:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Another query on TS

My previous query here got no response, but I'm still hoping for some assistance with Tourette syndrome. I've made several improvements since I last inquired, and someone (unknown to me) submitted the article for general peer review before I felt it was ready. I have:

  • addressed everything in the peer review, except the Lead section
  • shortened the article, using Summary Style, per the peer review and Encephalon's earlier help
  • updated the references to include exact references and page numbers where indicated, per comments on the FAC talk page
  • included links to videos of tics, per the peer review
  • re-ordered article sections to reflect WP:MOS

What I have not done, and would appreciate physician help on, is:

  • What to do about referencing page numbers for the inline citations of journal articles which I accessed online (e.g.; [2]). I don't have page numbers for this article.
I fixed some of those, usually it is not hard to find them in pubmed. --WS 16:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the help, WS. I do have PMIDs on all of the articles, but don't have page numbers for inline citations on that one article. Perhaps, if the article is accessed online, I don't need to provide page nos? Sandy 17:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Usually in medicine articles (as opposed to books) are not referenced to with specific page numbers, only the page numbers of the whole article. I don't know if this is different for other fields of science. --WS 21:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Encephalon once referred me to a preferred format for sections of medical articles. I can't find that information, now that I need it, and he's on extended Wikibreak. I only recall that that the suggested sections and ordering presented a problem, because the order didn't work well for TS. Prevalance needs to come before other sections with TS, in order to provide context (most TS is mild and doesn't require treatment) for other sections. I need guidance on how to arrange the sections.
For some general guidelines, see Writing medical articles. --WS 21:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, WS. That was exactly what I needed, and it helped me reorganize the article, so that I can now more easily see what is lacking. Sandy 03:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I haven't yet updated the lead, per the peer review comments, as I'd rather have physician peer review of the lead (vs. the general peer review of possibly non-medical people).
  • I am completely striking out on finding Fair Use graphics, charts, or pictures, and would really appreciate some guidance. The text needs graphic help.

Thanks in advance for any help or guidance. Regards, Sandy 16:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tourettism

Sorry to continue to ask for help here: not sure where else to find help. Can anyone here review tourettism? I pulled all the conditions together from several sources, but, since I'm not a medical person, I'm not sure if:

  • I've categorized each thing correctly,
  • the categories I used make sense, or
  • the article can be arranged in a way that is not listy, rather written prose.

Thanks, Sandy 19:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sandy,
I just had a quick glance at Tourettism, and the bit I'd like to focus on is the Introduction. Specifically, where it says: "Although Tourette syndrome is the most frequent cause of tics, other sporadic, genetic, and neurodegenerative disorders may also exhibit tics. These cases are referred to as "tourettism", secondary causes of tics, or identified as "sporadic" TS."
  • I believe that there's a bit of a mix-up in this assertion. "Sporadic TS" is Tourette Syndrome, not tourettism. "Sporadic" simply means that there is no apparent hereditary basis for the syndrome (ie, it's apparently not inherited) - basically, it means that it's the first and only known case of TS in a given family.
Hmmm, it looks like I need to tighten up the terminology: the TS literature seems to use the terms interchangeably. For example, from Jankovic, "A variety of sporadic, genetic, and neurodegenerative disorders may also exhibit tics. We review all cases of tics associated with other disorders (sometimes termed "tourettism") that have presented to our clinic, in a belief that a study of secondary cases of tics may provide insight into the pathogenesis of primary tics and TS."
  • Another thing I would mention is that "tourettism" and "secondary causes of tics" are not the same thing. The "secondary causes of tics" are the diseases mentioned (neurodegenarative, toxic, and so forth). "Tourettism" is "the presence of touretteish tics caused by secondary causes of tics, and not by TS".
I knew I needed help on this one :-)
  • I would dispute the statement that TS is the most common cause of tics. TS is relatively rare. Tics are very frequent. I don't have any references with me at the moment. Can anyone give us hard numbers?
Sure, I can help.
Tourette syndrome has historically been described as a rare disorder, with about 5 to 10 people in 10,000 having the condition. (PMID 11077021) However, multiple studies published since 2000 demonstrate that the prevalence is much higher than previously thought, and that Tourette syndrome can no longer be considered rare. Contemporary prevalence estimates range from 1 to 3 per 1,000 (PMID 11530433) to 10 per 1,000. (PMID 10802971)
"Careful epidemiologic studies now estimate the prevalence of TS to be substantially higher than previously thought." (Walkup JT, Mink JW, Hollenback PJ, (eds). Advances in Neurology, Vol. 99, Tourette Syndrome. Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, PA, 2006, p. xvi.) (PMID 11806685 PMID 12729145 PMID 15555352 PMID 12842225 PMID 12685307 and PMID 14980369)
A large, community-based study suggested that over 19% of school-age children have tics, with almost 4% of children in regular education fulfilling the diagnostic criteria for Tourette Syndrome. The children with tic disorders in that study were usually undiagnosed. PMID 11673576
As many as 1 in 100 people may experience some form of tic disorder, which includes transient tics, chronic tics, or Tourette Syndrome. (NIH [3])
In summary, from the TSA Medical Advisory Board Letter of 2004, "Integrating these new data with the discussion from the most recent review (Scahill et al, 2004) suggests that the prevalence of TS can be revised to 1 to 10 per 1,000."
Within TS research, and on the TSA Medical Advisory Board, Jankovic has always been the go-to guy on tourettism and secondary causes of tics. He has published several papers with Mejia, who I believe is the Brazilian. Jankovic J, Mejia NI. Tics associated with other disorders. Adv Neurol. 2006;99:61-8. PMID 16536352 "Although TS is the most common cause of tics, there are many other etiologies of tics and TS-like features (tourettism)."
  • I might also reformulate some expressions, so that it doesn't seem to borrow the Brazilian article in 'References'.
I would suggest something along these lines:
" "Tourettism" refers to the presence of Tourette-like behaviour in the absence of Tourette Syndrome. This behaviour is the result of other diseases or conditions, which are known as its 'secondary cause'. "
(Do you want to move this discussion to Talk:Tourettism?) MIP 22:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that would really help. I interspersed the three terms incorrectly. I've been trying to attract someone to help me finish up for some time, and I *really* appreciate the help !! Sandy 01:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Note: Replied in Talk:Tourettism. :o) MIP 15:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, MIP -- your help is much appreciated :-) Sandy 15:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
You're welcome. :o) MIP 20:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Asperger syndrome

A major effort is underway to salvage the featured status of Asperger syndrome, or in the event it can't be salvaged, to at least return it to something resembling an encyclopedic article. Can anyone help? See the talk page there. TIA, Sandy 15:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The AS article is approaching the end of its major review period. Large chunks of speculative content have been removed, and the article has been completely reorganized, referenced and copy-edited. If anyone could have a look before the major review period ends, that would be helpful. Sandy 04:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
I've got problems with the references. Reference 1 presents itself many times and clicking on it we get to Asperger_syndrome#_note-NINDS. But how to go back? I can see references there from a to o. I never know which one to choose. Or is it just my problem? BTW are there any external links or just one? NCurse work 08:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
I've got problems with the references, as well. Almost no PubMed research, a lot of books, and I don't know if those are reputable books by authors who enjoy peer review and the support of widespread medical consensus (could be akin to quoting Comings in Tourette's research, for all I know). The NINDS references work for me, so I'm not sure about the problem you're having. Reference 1 is to the NINDS fact sheet: when I click on a reference, I get there. The preponderance of NINDS references is because we've had a hard time getting active AS editors to link to actual PubMed research. Sandy 14:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] De-featured articles

A number of the older FAs have deteriorated. I struck from the template the older articles which are no longer featured: perhaps someone can suggest a better way of updating the template. There are a number of FAs that need to be reviewed, including at least Schizophrenia, Autism, Psychosis, and Race, as well as Asperger syndrome, currently under major review.Sandy 18:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I have been curious about the process of entropic deterioration of good articles for some time. For those articles you mention, how easy is it to figure out what version was the featured article version? Did you go back and compare current versions with featured versions. Was there an obvious difference? alteripse 00:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I've had luck comparing versions in some cases, and not in other others. Wiki's archives are quite a mystery, and I can't get them to cough up exact featured article dates on every article. If anyone has the secret key, then you can go back to that date, and just do a compare. BUT, the problem is bigger than just comparing past versions. I've seen the past version of Asperger syndrome, and it doesn't meet current standards, so in some cases, even if you could just revert the article, you might still get an article that doesn't meet today's FA requirements. I'm really hoping others here will take an interest in helping to maintain the FA status of these past articles, or get them defeatured if they are no longer medically accurate. I'm getting ready to nominate a lot of them for WP:FAR, since at least the ones I mention above are in bad shape. Not to be picking on the medical articles (this is a Wiki-wide problem), but it really concerns me when an FA medical article deteriorates, because of the potential effect on unsuspecting readers, who may believe the featured star is current. Sandy 00:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree that several of these articles were featured when the criteria were much less stringent; they'd have to be improved considerably to regain featured status (if you'll notice, the three articles that lost featured status are all from 2004). I doubt they were ever of sufficient quality to pass WP:FA today. It'd be nice to improve them back to featured status, though. — Knowledge Seeker দ 10:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
The older ones I listed above do need some urgent attention, and I'll be nominating them under WP:FAR one by one. If anyone could help upgrade them, it would be great. Asperger's will be coming up for a FARC vote soon, so others here might want to have a look at it ASAP -- there are some issues with the references and comprehensiveness. Race was a fine article two years ago, but it has also deteriorated: I just listed it for FAR. Sandy 12:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] trophies for ever?

Just wondering how often the items in the trophy box are reviewed, since medicine is an unstable field, and not inconsiderable monitoring and updating might be required for some articles to remain in consideration for their trophy. Tony 01:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Tony, see my question above ... Sandy 01:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I check it every week. Trophy box shows our FAs. It shows that an article still has FA state, not that it hits the level of an FA state. :) NCurse work 06:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
But I checked the new ones. So now I fixed the box to have a former featured articles part. Thanks for comment. NCurse work 06:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
In response to Tony, there is no formal review process. I just created the trophy box when I was setting up the MCOTW because I thought it would be nice to have a list of all the featured articles on medical topics. "List of featured articles on medical topics" would probably have been more appropriate, but I liked the sound of "Medicine trophy box" better. The only trophy they have is their featured status. — Knowledge Seeker দ 10:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the updated format, NCurse. There's one little bug on Breastfeeding -- I'll go fix it. Sandy 12:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

NCurse, I found the featured date for Lesch-Nyhan: it looks like Raul forgot to add the star to the article, and it didn't get added til much later. [4] Sandy 13:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's a date for Action potential: very old, may need attention. [5] Sandy 13:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Trophy box contains dates that show :when featured articles did appeare on the main page. Action potential and Lesch-Nyhan syndrome have never appeared on the main page. So there is no need for date.
Other thing: please have a look at it. I nominated some genetic disorders for Wikipedia release version 0.5. Thanks. NCurse work 13:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I think the only FA on that list is Cystic fibrosis, which is a recent promotion to FA, in very good shape, and not in need of review. I'm working my way through the list of articles that need a review for current FA standards. Sandy 14:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Maybe I should create a subpage of the project where we can review and discuss these articles. Comments? NCurse work 14:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I'd sure like it ! I'm going to need help on FAR to get these older articles brought up to snuff. Sandy 15:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I think tonight I can deal with it. :) I'll let you know where this subpage is. NCurse work 15:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I've done it: Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Featured articles review. Good work! I put this link to navigation box too. Feel free to fix, remove, improve. :) NCurse work 17:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] COTW should refresh every two weeks

I refresh it now every two weeks because we are just a few and we need time to work on an article. That's why one week is too fast. What do you think? NCurse work 15:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Sounds fine to me, one week seemed too short a time for everyone to get involved on each article Leevanjackson 09:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Two weeks is fine. --WS 10:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Two weeks or more would be fine for complex pages. What about having both a collaboration of the week and a collaboration of the month? perhaps, this would give more editors scope to edit topics that they are interested in or want to become interested in. Snowman 11:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I think it would make the whole process more complicated. Two weeks seems to be the best way. If we have just one COTW, then we could concentrate all on that. NCurse work 12:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

If you don't mind I'll let MCOTW to be Melanoma for an other week, because there's a great job around it. NCurse Image:Edu science.png work 14:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I've always seen the MCOTW as lasting longer than a week or two - usually just let it go until the thing is featured or runs out of steam. They've been cycling pretty fast recently - I'm still making plans about featured article status for atrial fibrillation, blood type, and rheumatoid arthritis! InvictaHOG 00:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok, then I'll let it go until the article goes to Peer review or FAC. Where can I help you? :) NCurse Image:Edu science.png work 06:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Should all MCOTW end up as peer review or FAC when the collaboration finishes?Leevanjackson 12:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I try to reach this, yes. Melanoma will go under Peer after being MCOTW for sure. NCurse Image:Edu science.png work 14:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Procedure for each article

I noticed when Huntingtons Disease was MCOTW, someone ( User:NCurse? ) used a 'todo' template with references should be external links, how about generating a list of standard tasks that can be put onto the MCOTW so that non-medical trained but interested people like me can do the non-medical bits?. Not sure how to do it but if I start one on this page ( which seem to be the todo for this page but maybe we can copy and paste ? Just found Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Medicine-related articles) which I guess would be the basis of this listLeevanjackson 12:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

To-do list for Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Collaboration of the Week: edit · history · watch · refresh

External links in the article should be reference links.
Yes, I created that list. Good idea! What about the automated Peer review list? It'd be similar? You could create one in your subpage then we'll move it here. I'd help if needed. NCurse Image:Edu science.png work 14:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HDN

I do not understand why HDN was deleted from the list, because it had 4 votes and so I feel it should have been this weeks MCOT2W. Snowman 10:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me! I just saw the date of expire: 27June06 and thought it must go to expired nominations' page. But it had 4 votes (needed 2 votes to remain in consideration). My fault, next MCOTW will be HDN. Really sorry. NCurse Image:Edu science.png work 10:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Fine. Snowman 10:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Biography

Let us know if you happen to pick an article on a person and we'll alert our members! plange 06:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

We'll. Thanks! :) NCurse Image:Edu science.png work 06:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help with Proteus Syndrome

I have just come across an inconsistency in Proteus_Syndrome. I quote:

Some affected individuals may suffer from learning disabilities as a result of these growths. (cut) The disorder has no documented effect on cognitive ability

Neither of these statements have any references attached. I personally have no reliable bibliography on Proteus, which I could consult to support either the first statement or the second.

Can anyone help? MIP | Talk 13:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


I wouldn't consider this an inconsistency, the learning disabilities are a secondary effect caused by the growths, not a primary effect, which is what the second phrase refers to. In other words, Proteus itself is not a cause of diminished cognitive ability, but this may be an effect of growths involving the brain. I am somewhat disappointed by the length of this article, considering the amount of data on it in OMIM, I don't know if I want to tackle it as a project yet though, but may take a look at it.UnseemlyWeasel 07:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

If the relevant bibliography supports it, might we then edit the article text to read something along the lines of:
"The disorder has no documented direct effect on cognitive ability; however, some affected individuals may suffer from learning disabilities as a result of the growths."
I believe this would be clearer to the reader. What do you (and others) think? Mip | Talk 20:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I can agree with that wording, especially since those two sentences are with such a large break between them, if I can verify the no "direct cause" through OMIM, I love using that as a source, simply because they have a way of almost wikifying almost every single medical paper written on a topic. Sometimes rough reading for us laymen ( Dammit, Jim I'm a benefits coordinator, not a doctor!!)UnseemlyWeasel 23:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ascertainment bias

Is anyone here able to spend some time in ascertainment bias? It is really in dismal shape. Sandy 15:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I redid the opening paragraph. If you think it is better I will have a go at the rest. alteripse 02:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Participants

I've initiated a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Participants that I would like to merge the participants list on Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Collaboration of the Week to Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Participants. Please comment there. -AED 22:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dusting off the old WP account; Anatomy

Hi everyone - I'm Mr.Bip, and I helped out with the MCOTW about a year ago, especially on Asthma (see discussion above). I took a big long break, but now that I'm in medical school, I'm ready to start helping out again. I just wanted to say hello and let everyone know that I'm around to help out with projects and do what I can.

Also, has anyone noticed the the human anatomy section of WP is in need of serious housekeeping? It could use some standardization: check out how different heart, lung, and small intestine are. And yes, I'm getting all worked up about this because I'm taking anatomy right now. Mr.Bip 05:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back Mr.Bip, there is a drive to work on these articles, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Anatomy, your input would be valuable there. --apers0n 06:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Collaboration of the month?

MCOTW is nearly dead, and we have already changed it to Medicine Collab. of the fortnight. We should work like Science collab. of the month. One article, one month. What do you think?

Having it once a month seems to make more sense. More time to work on a particular article and more people will see that article (as the collaboration sign will show the same article for 3 weeks longer) giving more chances to improve the article. I would support making the collaboration a monthly rather than weekly... petze 07:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
It's been a collab of the month for a while as I change it just every 4 weeks, but the name remained collab of the week. NCurse work 08:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Without wishing to be confrontational

My motivation for several of the health related topics is that they degenerate into Americanised versions of the reality, examples such as public health and nursing are prime examples of pages set up with good intent, but transformed into a North American perspective.

A remedy for this is to flag the page with the "globalize" tag, and on its talk page describe the North American POV issues. --Una Smith 14:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:MEDMOS

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles) is a proposed guideline discussed and developed over recent months. Please visit the talk page to indicate whether you support or oppose Manual of Style (medicine-related articles) becoming a guideline. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Biology collaboration

I notice we have three collaborations for subfields of biology but no Biology collaboration of the month. I've suggested we should look at starting one at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biology. Please drop by if you're interested. Richard001 03:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The future

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#MCOTW and open tasks for the future of this collaboration. JFW | T@lk 23:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion

Is there (or should there be) a minimum number of votes for something to be selected? The last couple of "collaborations" have had few people actually show up to do anything. I'm thinking that we really need a minimum of three people who can actually work on the article (which might mean four votes). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It's even hard to find one article that can be in the focus of the collaboration. That's why we don't need a minimal number of votes. If you know a better solution, I'm ready to change anything. NCurse work 08:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions for med collaboration of the week

WLU has started [Talk:Pain_and nociception#Suggestions for med collaboration of the week] - please read Pain and nociception and add to the suggestions list what-ever you see as beneficial. SmithBlue (talk) 04:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Queued articles

Looking at the nomination for placebo and the keenness for inter project colaboration gave me an idea. If we had a stack, or queue of articles that are going to be collaborations it would be easier to coordinate with other projects.. That is we can warn them of an impending collaboration, maybe even give a date, whereas now it would be 'we are currently collaborating on ....' which may interfere with there own collaboration schedule ... ? LeeVJ (talk) 22:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely understand you, but as it depends on the number of voters, it's quite hard to create a queue. I think we should keep an eye on the other collaborations, that's all we can do. What do you think? NCurse work 07:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I guess we can continue manually, just put the idea into the future ideas pot ... LeeVJ (talk) 19:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category:MCOTW previous collaborations has been deleted

I assume that it was deleted as it had no articles in it. I think the template for MCOTWprev didn't have the category included in it

i.e. <includeonly>[[Category:MCOTW candidates|{{PAGENAME}}]]</includeonly> was missing

I'm not sure about this - is the category needed? LeeVJ (talk) 18:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's an important category. NCurse work 07:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)