Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Timeline of tuberous sclerosis
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Timeline of tuberous sclerosis[edit]
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 12 days, 6 support, 0 oppose, and 2 Neutrals. Promote. --Crzycheetah 20:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
| Current Opinion | User |
|---|---|
| Support | Tony1 |
| Support | Fvasconcellos |
| Support | MarcoTolo |
| Support | DO11.10 |
| Neutral | Circeus |
| Support | NCurse |
| Neutral | TonyTheTiger |
| Support | Sandy |
This is a medical timeline, of which the only previous featured example is Timeline of peptic ulcer disease and Helicobacter pylori. Tuberous sclerosis is a rare genetic disease, first identified towards the end of the nineteenth century. This timeline includes all the key events in its history, with references to the classic medical papers associated with these events. The medical terms are, I'm afraid, somewhat long and obscure. I've introduced them in context so you should get a rough idea of what XYZ is without having to know exactly what it is. Following the wikilink or reading the tuberous sclerosis article should fill in the details, if curious. It is comprehensive in that it covers all the notable events listed in several "History of" chapters and papers; it only includes events that other researchers have indicated as notable (see the talk page for details). It has had a peer review. Colin°Talk 22:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Neutral. Circeus 19:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]Unfortunately, almost all of these items also needs to be in the present tense, not the past.I'm iffy with promoting this and having 3 timelines (peptic ulcer, chemistry, and this) with completely different formats. If there is willingness to give this a format closer to that of Chemistry, I'll convert H. pilori myself. I have to say the Chemistry format is not perfect either, though, for longer items... Maybe the definition list format?
Definition list format applied to 2 items
- 1835
- French dermatologist Pierre François Olive Rayer published an atlas of skin diseases. It contains 22 large coloured plates with 400 figures presented in a systematic order. On page 20, fig. 1 is a drawing that is regarded as the earliest description of tuberous sclerosis. Entitled "végétations vasculaires", Rayer notes these are "small vascular, of papulous appearance, widespread growths distributed on the nose and around the mouth". No mention is made of any medical condition associated with the skin disorder.
- 1850
- English dermatologists Thomas Addison and William Gull described, in Guy's Hospital Reports, the case of a four-year-old girl with a "peculiar eruption extending across the nose and slightly affecting both cheeks", which they called "vitiligoidea tuberosa".
- Also, I'd like to see the header image given a caption that better ties it to the topic.
- We've got loads of timelines (H. pylori, chemistry, Apple Macintosh models, Narnian, discovery of solar system planets and their natural satellites, Canadian elections, first orbital launches by nationality). They are all wonderfully different. I'm not aware of any Timeline StyleGuide on WP. Your suggestions for improvements (e.g. definition list format) are welcome and I'll look at it so see if it looks good. But I disagree with opposing over having different formats. I wouldn't recommend you go converting H. pilori without chatting to the editor(s) first.
- I see that the chemistry timeline is present tense. To be honest, it sounds forced to my ears and necessarily lapses to past tense at times. I'll probably ask around to see what others think about this. Are you aware of any guidelines (on or off WP) that suggest timelines must be present tense?
- I agree with the header caption. I'll try to come up with something. Colin°Talk 20:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But chemistry, H. pylori, Narnia, and this one share the exact same information to present for each entry: a date, and an event, while the other present significantly different information, which makes the necessity of their format generally obvious (though you could argue that Apple Macintosh models is not that different). And actually, all three of chemistry, Narnia and H.pilori are in the present. The H.pilori is way too contrived for the information that needs presentation IMHO. The table can definitely go. Circeus 02:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, you know, a date and an event is the essence of all timelines. Sometimes the event is just a word (e.g. the name of the disease that got a vaccine); often a soundbite ("Diana dies in a car crash"; "Hitler invades Poland"); with this list I've had to be a bit more descriptive. None of these events are well known enough to reduce to a soundbite. Often, it is interesting/essential to put the event into context or annotate it from a modern perspective. The Chemistry timeline doesn't manage to keep to the present tense consistently—it is very hard to do (e.g. "1754: Joseph Black isolates carbon dioxide, which he called "fixed air""). Take the following (rather medically-complex) entry:
- 1918 French physician René Lutembacher published the first report of cystic lung disease in a patient with TSC. The 36-year-old woman died from bilateral pneumothoraces. Lutembacher believed the cysts and nodules to be metastases from a renal fibrosarcoma. This complication, which only affects women, is now known as lymphangioleiomyomatosis (LAM).
- Can you make that consistently present-tense? Is it improved? The last sentence may need to move to either parenthesis or a footnote, since it is a comment from the "future". The style I've used is that you should be able to read each entry as "In 1918, ....". The tense may change throughout the paragraph, but only in away that follows a natural writing style. The soundbite-timeline-present-tense style is unnatural IMO. You can get away with it for soundbites but not for paragraphs.
- I've changed the format to the definition list style you suggested. It is certainly less condensed. You should realise that you started by asking for consistency among the timelines, and then proposed a different format of your own. I'm all for experimenting here, but I'm also keen to support WP's lack of rigid "house style". All these timelines are different in the detail for each entry, in the number of pictures, in the obscurity of the facts, etc. Provided a list/timeline is professionally presentable and easy to read, we should celebrate diversity.
- I've fixed the caption. The jury is still out on the tense issue IMO. I'm more interested in producing a readable and consistent article, than conforming to one idea of how a timeline should work. I ask you to just view this as a list of events in time and be flexible. Thanks. Colin°Talk 08:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would strongly suggest keeping this in the past tense. Describing events that have occurred in the past in the present tense just appears ungrammatical to me. I looked at the chemistry list and this uses a mix of past and present tense in adjacent entries - very confusing. Tim Vickers 15:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks okay to me. Because the dates are not included in the sentences, if they were, the past would be required. It's a contextual element. I agree that present doesn'twork for normal prose, and that events placed in relation to others in the timeline have to use the past, but the present looks just right to me otherwise for the main statements... Oh, and I made a conversion of H.pilori here. In addition to the bare conversion, other stuff was tweaked, especially in regard to the references and images. I also added 2 missing periods. What are your thoughts? Circeus 16:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You still haven't convinced me, nor have you suggested how to rewrite the 1918 example. I can't change the "main statements" to present-tense and leave the other bits as they are. That would mean I'd start each entry with an historically-based present tense sentence and then jump into a TARDIS midway to give an 21c perspective. Can we just agree that this is a difference of opinion on style, for which there is no consensus one way or another? I've addressed your other points; could you please reconsider your oppose? Colin°Talk 16:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not that keen on the current H.pylori table so I think your reformat is an improvement in some ways. The pictures are perhaps a little large and less well linked to the entries (you've had to drop some too). The biggest problem is the original bullet-points within each year have been lost and we've now just got short stubby paragraphs. That doesn't look great and needs to be addressed IMO. However, you shouldn't be discussing that list with me in this FLC. You need to involve the other editors and move this discussion over to the H.pylori talk page instead. Colin°Talk 16:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have to agree with Tim and Colin on the tense issue - past tense is usually more appropriate when describing a timeline of events. While consistency is a Good Thing, this isn't writ in stone: some of the mixed tense in Timeline of chemistry actually works (while other examples are a little jarring—rather like this parenthetical statement). I'll review the list more completely this evening. -- MarcoTolo 14:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support—Interesting, informative and well-written. I like the past tense, but why does it lurch into the present tense in 2002? Keep it all past, even 2006. It will age better. MOS is about to encourage numerals in favour of spelt out ordinals, if I have my way. "18th century", not "Eighteenth century". But it's up to you. Tony 15:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for that. I've noticed a few places where the tense was a little inconsistent, but was reluctant to go through with a fine-tooth comb while there was the possibility of a major tense shift. I'll fix these tonight. Wrt 18th century, I don't mind changing that. Colin°Talk 16:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral I'm still iffy over the tense thing, but otherwise, I can't really see any other reason to oppose. Circeus 20:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I've gone over the list once more and have no reasonable objections; I was unsure on the relevance of one entry, but that has been addressed by Colin. Congratulations—a fine piece of work in my very humble opinion :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - no significant concerns. An excellent timeline on a curiously relevant disorder - nice work as usual, Colin. -- MarcoTolo 22:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Very informative and well researched, clearly fulfills the FLC guidelines. I have no real opinion on the matter of tense. I have seen timelines presented both ways, except for a few minor instances both seem to work.--DO11.10 00:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - This is a well-referenced, well-organized article. Congrat! NCurse work 09:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak OpposeI find it hard to believe this meets WP:WIAFL 1b. Unless the timeline is that of a reliable, verifyable third party it constitutes WP:OR. What makes this comprehensive? For example, why isn't there at least one more discovery that could arguably be included in the timeline.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 00:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Tony, you ask two reasonable questions: Is it OR and is it comprehensive? The first I have anticipated and dealt with both in the final sentence of this nomination and also in the first section of the linked-to talk page. If this timeline had been constructed by me scanning a medical library or PubMed for papers and choosing those discoveries I believed were notable, then it would be OR. It is not. This timeline is soundly based on four timelines that are from reliable, verifiable third parties. Three of these are in my References section and also discussed on the talk page. The fourth is a timeline in MR Gómez's monograph on TSC, which while slightly different from the one in his 1995 paper, isn't that different to the one appearing in Curatolo's 2003 textbook (it adds nothing new). Both books are regarded as the authoritative textbooks on the condition, with Gómez widely considered to be the father of modern TSC research. Those timelines appear in "History of" chapters and papers, which flesh out the details a little. I have supplemented these with events listed in a few other "History of" papers. I hope this addresses your OR concern.
- The other concern is whether this is comprehensive. Unlike, for example a Timeline of Apple Macintosh models, this timeline involves a degree of judgement (and I've left that judgement to others). Sure, someone might come along and argue for the addition of another discovery. Provided they can find a source that backs up their claim that it is a truly notable discovery, then it could go in. In that sense, it is a dynamic list. It is not as dynamic as some lists (such as the people lists) and not as static as others (we can be fairly sure we've captured all the Candadian elections to date). The fact that this is based on other published timelines shows that it is much more likely to be comprehensive than if I'd plucked a mention here and a note there from 50 different papers. It does not "omit any major component of the subject", which is what 1b requires. Colin°Talk 08:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral I am a little concerned that you had to combine four lists. Why not 3 or 5? What makes the combination of these 4 the official list. On the other hand, they are third party lists. Still a little hesitant because I am not convinced another scientist would agree these are the proper 4 sources.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a little like saying "I don't accept your article because it is based on a review in The Lancet. Why didn't you base it on the review in the BMJ." Both are excellent sources. Using one source might cause a subtle variation compared to another source. That's natural and allowed. There just aren't 10 different contradictory timelines out there. This is a rare disease. I reckon most timelines are based on Gómez's, and that probably first appeared in the 1979 1st edition of his book. Every author since then adds and subtracts a few events according to their judgement, but mainly to cover new discoveries. By combining timelines, I ensure the list is comprehensive and yet also reinforce the entries since most of them are repeated. I'm not saying this list contains the only definitive set of events; that would be impossible. There are certainly no major events missing; all my sources agree on this. Colin°Talk 17:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment My neutrality is not a statement against your list. I am just averse to supporting lists that are not capable of being described as the only list. That is just my philosophy on FLCs. You can see on this page I remained in opposition of some such lists. Neutral is pretty good from me for such a list. I prefer lists such that judgment is not necessary to determine whether the list was complete.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 22:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a little like saying "I don't accept your article because it is based on a review in The Lancet. Why didn't you base it on the review in the BMJ." Both are excellent sources. Using one source might cause a subtle variation compared to another source. That's natural and allowed. There just aren't 10 different contradictory timelines out there. This is a rare disease. I reckon most timelines are based on Gómez's, and that probably first appeared in the 1979 1st edition of his book. Every author since then adds and subtracts a few events according to their judgement, but mainly to cover new discoveries. By combining timelines, I ensure the list is comprehensive and yet also reinforce the entries since most of them are repeated. I'm not saying this list contains the only definitive set of events; that would be impossible. There are certainly no major events missing; all my sources agree on this. Colin°Talk 17:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral I am a little concerned that you had to combine four lists. Why not 3 or 5? What makes the combination of these 4 the official list. On the other hand, they are third party lists. Still a little hesitant because I am not convinced another scientist would agree these are the proper 4 sources.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. The referencing work is just beautiful, and for a topic that must introduce complex terminology, the prose is very digestible; yet another example of Colin's fine attention to detail and organization. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]