Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 70

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 65

←

Archive 68

→

"Sanity check" for a new article please

Please look over Antiadherence activity of proanthocyanidins from cranberry, I've tagged several issues but as I'm not a medical or pharmacology specialist I might (probably?) have missed something significant. I couldn't figure out even one category for it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:37, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Running my non-medical eyes over it I'll only note that it seems to be somewhat at odds with our cranberry article, which states that "Two comprehensive reviews of available research concluded that there is no evidence that cranberry compounds are effective in treating urinary tract infections". As to which (if either) article is correct, I'll leave that to the experts. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

If one checks the relevant paragraph in the new article it appears that the cranberry article statement is simply outdatd, the new article emphasizes prophylaxis rather than treatment, but as you said, leave it for the expert opinions of others. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:55, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Whatever the evidence, this doesn't need a whole article and should be merged to cranberry. Alexbrn (talk) 13:01, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

The reveal came in the last paragraph - was there to promote a dietary supplement product called Cysticlean and there were arguments throughout the article that something just like that product is what the world needs. I condensed the content, then put the content here: Proanthocyanidin#Urinary_tract_infections and redirected. Maybe adding to the Cranberries would be better, or in addition to that. Jytdog (talk) 13:12, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

concur--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:22, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

forgot to say thanks, Dodger67 - so thanks! Jytdog (talk) 13:35, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Pleasure! BTW it would really help if some of you med-experts would occasionally trawl through the pending AFC submissions and review relevant ones. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:50, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

@Jytdog: Thanks for pinging me, and everybody else with a link to our userpage on User:Dodger67. ;) Took me a few minutes to figure out why I was pinged... :P (t) Josve05a (c) 16:12, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

My apologies for my clumsiness. oy Jytdog (talk) 16:53, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

@Dodger67: Did anything ever come of the idea to tag drafts with topic categories or wikiproject tags? Awhile back I set up the MCB tag to accommodate drafts, and MED could do the same if it hasn't been done already, but I haven't seen any topic sorting on the AfC end, beyond having individual reviewers ping relevant projects. But I'm not involved in AfC otherwise, so maybe I missed it. Opabinia regalis (talk) 17:00, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

@Opabinia regalis: some of us are doing it sporadically, but there is a script function under development to include such tagging in the semi-automated reviewing tool, so it's bound to become more systematic soon. (We're also a bit burnt out after reducing the biggest backlog we've ever had - it peaked at well over 4000 submissions - down to around 200.) But clever tools and workflow redesigns will only go so far, we really need a sustained "buy-in" and participation from "subject" WikiProjects. Generalist Wikignomes such as myself can only do so much without subject specialists - on any given day I might review drafts on topics ranging from architecture to zoology via weapons technology, soccer and linguistics, but still the vast majority of submissions are simply crap. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:54, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

The WikiProject Medicine Collaboration of the Month for August

Hello all,

As I announced earlier this month, I am trying to reboot the MCOTM and as it is now August in the majority of the world, I have gone ahead and updated the article of the month to be transverse myelitis. In its current state it is very dismal. At the very least, I think with the combined effort of everyone here we will be able to get it up to B at the least. As I know not everyone has access to sources I have ~~shared some via Dropbox~~ which anyone is free to use. Some goals I think we will be able to accomplish by September are: i) Expand epidemiology section ii) Add information for treatments, iii) Improve citations, and iv) Better Wikification of the article to comply with MEDMOS.

Hopefully we will be able to make a marginal impact on the quality of this article. Peter.C • talk • contribs 00:24, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

For your sake I've removed the dropbox link as you could get into trouble for copyvio (unlikely yes, but it's also in the WP rules). You can however have this link available on request for anyone who mails you. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 00:35, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

P.S. Great initiative, I plan to help out. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 00:40, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Yea, I realized that a few moments after I posted it. Anyone can contact me via Wiki mail and I will send them the link. Also of note, the summer semester is wrapping up over the next few days so I am being inundated with due papers and finals so if I go a few days without posting or checking up on the MCOTM, I have not jumped ship, I am just up to my eyeballs in work. Peter.C • talk • contribs 00:52, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

great working w/ you Peter--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:23, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

New Wikipedia study

The study is Analysis of reference sources used in drug-related Wikipedia articles. Apparently "Wikipedia articles for the evaluated drugs tended to cite a wide variety of sources, with journal articles, commercial websites, news articles, and government websites being the most common sources cited." It seems about half the references are to peer-reviewed journal articles, which is good. However, the same study says that "Wikipedia articles rarely cited evidence-based guidelines, which are generally considered to be important sources of drug information for clinical practitioners." Everymorning talk 14:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

An important limitation that is inherent to this type of research is that Internet-based information resources are constantly changing and being updated; thus, the types of sources used and the speed or frequency of information update may change as time goes on[1]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:41, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Most scientific journals are paywalled, the other sources (news, companies and government) are not. So if as many as half the cites in pharmaceutical articles are from journals we're actually doing pretty well. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:03, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Most of us I believe have access to paywalled content, and for those who don't you can always ask here for journal articles. As for news and company pages we shouldn't be using them for anything medical related and it's a shame they don't break those up into more detailed stats. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 21:12, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Many editors likely have institutional affiliations that come with good journal access, while readers mostly don't. I always try to use OA papers where possible, but that's easier in basic than in clinical research. They don't seem to have done much to break down what the sources were used for - obviously an article that discusses the marketing of a particular drug, or the history of its discovery, or its chemical properties, etc. will have a different mix of sources than the subsections specifically about medical information. This is a recurrent problem with research intended to compare "medical information" on Wikipedia to traditional sources, and IMO making too much effort to do better in these sorts of comparisons worsens the already detectable skew toward assuming the reader is looking for patient information rather than other encyclopedic content. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:18, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Most editors don't have paywalled access, which is why WP:The Wikipedia Library is so important.

Our articles about drugs ought to cite news and other types of sources. That's because they're encyclopedia articles, not drug articles, and therefore should contain a wide variety of information, including non-medical information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:02, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Visual Temporal Integration

Dear medical experts: Here's an old draft about a topic that seems to be referred to in a lot of studies and articles. I tried to add some as references, but I may have messed it up. Is this a notable topic, and if so is it ready for mainspace?—Anne Delong (talk) 03:11, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

the #6 references is MEDRS compliant, and there is this [2] review...therefore save...and thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:46, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay, Ozzie10aaaa, it's in mainspace now, at Visual temporal integration.—Anne Delong (talk) 11:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

thanks --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:10, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Global Alliance for Self Management Support for deletion

This article seems to be promotional material, and there was some editing to insert links in other articles such as Birth control. I don't see any ill intent per say, maybe we should reach out to the editor? -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 14:08, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Forgot to link Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Alliance for Self Management Support. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 14:21, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

it seems to be tagged (per Wikipedia:Deletion_policy)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Redirect request

News items like "Students targeted in MenW vaccination programme" [3] make me think that users are likely to be searching for terms such as MenW or Men W (or Men A, etc, etc...) Potential targets for redirects might be Meningitis#Vaccination or Meningococcal vaccine. I see there is also a little content on the strains themselves at Neisseria meningitidis#Subtypes. Cheers, 86.174.48.45 (talk) 12:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

86.174.48.45 You can do this yourself by adding #REDIRECT [[page name]] to the red link. I will do it for now, but till next time. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 14:10, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Ah yes, I remember now. Thanks CFCF. 86.174.48.45 (talk) 15:24, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

IP editors can't create new articles -- even redirects. Looie496 (talk) 20:23, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Improving infobox drug

I have made two proposals to improve infobox drug here [4]. One is to move the identifying info lower in the article. The other is to add pricing info. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:38, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:31, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Doc James has turned up a really good source for global pricing. I'm very pleased with it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:28, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

That got me all excited! Responding at Doc James link. Jytdog (talk) 00:44, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Polyuria

have not had time to edit this important article, would appreciate any help, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:10, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Cinepazide

One of the top selling drugs in China. Earlier today this article was four words. The world is so big and unpredictable. Jytdog (talk) 21:59, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Might be a case for Wikipedia:Did You Know - that may be an interesting thing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:01, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, great editor=great article[5]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:12, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

There are not a lot of good sources in pubmed on the drug. :( Jytdog (talk) 22:45, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

It needs another two sentences or so. I'm willing to nominate it, if someone can add another few hundred characters to it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:34, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Encephalitis

having difficulty finding good references, for this important topic, would appreciate any help,thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:25, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

You should head to a library and borrow Adam and Victor's Principles of Neurology or Harrisons Neurology in Clinical Practice. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 00:13, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

good idea[6]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:31, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Notability of a neuroscience researcher

Does User:Neurotemple/sandbox/Mayank Gautam make the grade or not? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:44, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

He appears to be a PhD student with an h-index of 1, [7] so probably not, IMO. Everymorning talk 11:05, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
- Are these reliable sources? Sourcing is a bit unclear there. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:09, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability don't think he meets this--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:27, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

MEDRS

Help needed to discuss whether economic papers on public health are (or need to be) MEDRS, please: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mass_deworming#Are_these_references_MEDRS.3F JMWt (talk) 08:13, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: I see what you are trying to do here, but your edits have minimised the considerable controversy raging about the applicability of the results of the study. I'm not sure your solution of simply removing anything else is going to help a reader understand why there is a controversy. Removing the criticisms in this way is not helping MEDRS, in my opinion. Also, the page was originally written under the Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(Sanitation)#Articles_on_concepts which specifically has a section for criticisms. I think in conclusion you've just widened MEDRS beyond what is helping in discussing a controversial topic which goes beyond simple medical results.JMWt (talk) 09:10, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

If there truly is a controversy raging then that controversy will be covered in high-quality secondary sources we can use. If the controversy can only be shown be stringing together a load of weak sources then we need to wait until the "controversy" becomes an accepted thing in itself we can report. We can't question a Cochrane review using material from think tanks and the like ... and of course we shouldn't "teach the controversy" as that is inherently non-neutral. Alexbrn (talk) 09:20, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Whilst I see that the layout may needed to be improved, I dislike this swooping down and removing whole sections from a page when the sources are debating findings from other papers, which themselves are not primarily medical. Plus, as I said, the page was not even originally written under the MoS of medical pages anyway. I think the controversy should be referenced, as with many other pages upon which the WP Sanitation is working on. JMWt (talk) 09:38, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

It's not just MEDRS, it's neutrality. If (as seems the case) there's a consenus in medical science that the benefits of mass de-worming isn't strongly evidenced, then it's just not neutral to give that a couple of sentences and then have a whole section with a ton of weaker references debunking it. There a nice lofty piece on ft.com that covers the dismay with which the latest Cochrane findings have been greeted in some quarters, and this might be useful for a brief mention of the "controversy", but for the medical evidence we need to put the weight on the best medical sources. Alexbrn (talk) 10:20, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

it might be best to engage this at the appropriate venue ...(article talk)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:29, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Disturbing image on Behcets disease

[8]

An editor has expressedc concern that an image is disturbing and should be removed to improve readability. Thoughts? Matthew Ferguson (talk) 06:36, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with any of the images(it is what it is, they have to be representative of the article)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 08:11, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Added my thoughts on the talk page. Peter.C • talk • contribs 16:50, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Lack of editorial judgment

Poor editorial judgment to use this image?

While I don't have much to add to the above discussion I agree there are actual cases of poor judgment concerning images on Wikipedia. Hydrocephalus is a relatively common disorder and is normally treatable. The article currently lacks any prognosis section, but includes one image of a preserved specimen akin to what was featured at side-shows.

The image is very distasteful to me, not because of the condition, but because of the way it is treated. The "specimen" looks to be numbered and preserved in formalin some time during the 19th century. I think we should do our best to find a replacement image, because this is seriously bad for our credibility and is not informative to our readers. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 11:58, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Agree second image more appropriate, in this case. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 15:06, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I have tried to explain more in the caption to the first image ("Historical specimen of an infant with severe hydrocephalus, probably untreated"), but not averse to it going. I've added the second one as "Baby recovering from surgery". Johnbod (talk) 15:18, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Johnbod. I will see if I can get anything better for the first section and maybe we can move that image down to the history section. I don't find it improper to include the image, it just has to be done in a way where some form of explanation is given. The 19th century was grim and there is nothing wrong in highlighting that, but having these images as the visually most prominent is just morbid and uninformative. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 13:40, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Regional US/Canada Wikimedia conference - Washington DC - 9-11 October

Hello. I would like to invite you to WikiConference USA. This community gathering will be Friday-Sunday 9-11 October (with Columbus Day being Monday the 12th) in Washington DC at the National Archives and Records Administration.

Persons interested in participating may present a submission, request one of about 25 travel scholarships, or plan to attend. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:51, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

great information--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:24, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Angry blog post about us/Massive sockpuppet at large

I came across a pretty hilarious blog post concerning the work of WikiProject Medicine written by a banned editor at his blog (warning uses some graphic language about us). I was made aware of its existence here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jerome Katz (2nd nomination).

Anyway this is simply a pre-amble to the following investigation I'm working on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FergusM1970. I've been looking into the activities of some accounts here and it seems very clear to me that there are very many that do the same type of work. Unrelated they've also been working on the Romanian pop-singer Inna's articles (the entire set is written pretty much by SPAs or IPs from the same range). If anyone would like to help me find related accounts or investigate the IP-ranges (at least 89.204.135.XXX–89.204.139.XXX & 89.15.235.XXX–89.15.239.XXX) I would be very happy. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 20:32, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Delete Category:Incurable and invariably fatal diseases

I know there was a discussion earlier about this type of category and I see it has been implemented despite our conclusions. Please weigh in on the deletion page. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 18:54, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:20, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Anthropometric cosmetology

oy. Jytdog (talk) 21:56, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:41, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Mate (beverage)

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

There is some disagreement about how the "Health effects" section of this article should be sourced, and whether/how primary sources should be used. More eyes welcome. Alexbrn (talk) 14:21, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

will look--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia readers demand pancakes

There is something very strange about the pancake article.

The traffic to this article has been 5000/views per day for some months. This puts it among the top 0.01% of Wikipedia articles by popularity, which makes it much more popular than any other food or beverage. The only food concepts which are more popular than the pancake article are McDonald's, Coca-Cola, absinthe, and cannabis. Pi is more popular but is not pie and dog is more popular but probably not for food, just as cricket is a food but not popular for that reason.

I checked the top 3000 articles by traffic, which are updated weekly. Occasionally something will sneak in for news coverage for a short period of time, but pancakes have been consistently popular for the last year. Banana is the only other food in the top 3000, and it ranks around 2800 to pancake at 2500.

I was looking at this to think about nutrition. I was wondering if people were searching for some diet or something, but pancake seems to be the major entry to Wikipedia for food information. Are people searching for a recipe? I note also that 10% of people searching for pancake do so from a mobile device, while 50% of the traffic to banana are people using mobile devices.

Are pancakes really the food of universal interest? Why are people so crazy for encyclopedic information on pancakes? I searched PubMed for pancakes. There are a lot of doctors named Dr. Pancake plus also I made pancake syndrome so that we have some presence in this popular article. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

That pancake syndrome factor... See, that's why my pancakes are usually store-bought (in other words...already made, not homemade). Flyer22 (talk) 19:18, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

A low viewership on either client indicates an attack. As to why there is a sustained attack on pancakes I don't know... -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 19:21, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for making me laugh with that section header. this is a head-scratcher. i will do some head-scratching and look forward to seeing what others think is up with this. we humans are so strange. Jytdog (talk) 19:28, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

See Pancakes, Waffles and French Toast (American Eating Trends Report) - Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC).

—Wavelength (talk) 19:29, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

interesting--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:32, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

How reliable is this data? The bottom of the percent-mobile list contains some junk, and some other oddball outliers - e.g. the disambiguation page Ddd apparently gets 290,000 views, but with 0.14% from mobile. Or the #2 ranked article overall, with some 5 million views, 100% of which are from mobile, is... Angelsberg? A two-sentence stub about a town of 300 people in Luxembourg, which grok.se says has been viewed about 400 times in the last month?

I could go for pancakes right now, though. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:00, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Opabinia regalis The data is suspect generally. I live in New York and meet a lot of people who work in the field of web traffic reporting, and have come to believe that the entire field is screwball with a lot of people making a lot of things up no matter where they work, what academic or respectable publication they use to publish, or who endorses the work. Still, the data can mean something sometimes, and I really do think something unusual is happening with the pancake article.

CFCF used the word attack and I think that it is possible that the pancake article is being attacked. Other popular food articles are coffee, wine, and chocolate, and all of them get less traffic despite them all having a major web presence and large communities which discuss them continually. There are no pancake social groups that discuss pancakes endlessly like those things are discussed. It could be that since pancakes are one of the easiest things to cook at home then people are looking for a recipe, but I am not sure.

The other odd thing here is that the traffic is so consistent. Most Wikipedia articles have traffic that fluctuates weekends versus weekdays, or in summer versus winter. The traffic to pancake is steady every day, which makes me think that perhaps a bot is involved somehow. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

With no detectable periodicity, it's definitely strange. (Maybe someone thinks it's funny for the pancake traffic to be flat? ;) But I'm not convinced this is real traffic of unknown origin, as opposed to some kind of data collection glitch. Traffic to Ddd looks the same - high and flat. And this is the same dataset that tells us there were five million hits from people looking up Angelsberg, Luxembourg on their phones last week - for anyone who believes that, I have a bridge in Angelsberg to sell you. Today's update says six million views for nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy, almost all on desktop - well, that's one of my favorite topics and I'd love to see that much interest in it, but there is no goddamn way that's true. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:42, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

[[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] I'm sure this is people looking for recipes and either the browser preloads the Wikipedia page or people think that there might be a good pancake recipe on Wikipedia. JFW | T@lk 11:33, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

You get these strange anomalies - for quite a while (several months) the obscure topic of bone char got over 10K views a day (as here); now it gets about 500. Nobody seems to know why; perhaps it was used as an example of something by another website. Johnbod (talk) 16:15, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Turning on Feedback tool 5

I would like to get feedback tool 5 turned back on for medical articles (or at least some medical articles). I personally would find knowing what our readers think very useful and of research interest.

Support

Support as proposer Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:44, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
support--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:47, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Support and I also suggest it turned on for WP:ANATOMY & WP:PHYSIOLOGY -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 14:52, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Support to my knowledge this is the only tool that allows us to understand how useful the reader finds the information we provide. Mrjohncummings (talk) 14:53, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Support: reader feedback is potentially useful to improve content. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 15:36, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Support - How can we improve if we do not know the way readers feel/interact with articles? Peter.C • talk • contribs 15:50, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Support - Please do this. Please. The only thing turning it off accomplished was to slow the pace of article improvement. And, in line with what CFCF said, turn it on for WP:PHARM as well if possible. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 16:04, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Support. Worth looking at this again. JFW | T@lk 21:17, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Support - on balance. See discussion. --RexxS (talk) 23:36, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Support - This makes a lot of sense. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 23:37, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Support if there is a central place to view feedback put under a project (eg a 'recent feedback' page). With such a system small projects would benefit, such as our related project WP:ANATOMY. However if feedback is viewed on a page by page basis, as stated below, I do not think it will be very useful. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:51, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

LT910001, we can likely integrate it into WikiProject X, which is run by Harej. I haven't got to proposing using it at WP:ANAT yet, but I think it has great potential to create such useful dashboards. Harej do you think this is possible? -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 21:45, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Isn't AFTv5 basically deprecated? Harej (talk) 15:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Support a tool of some sort where people who are not editors can be solicited to leave feedback about a specific medical related article. If the feedback tool 5 can be tailored for this use then I would support its use. If not, then we need to create a different tool to let us get feedback. There are specific types of information that we want to get from readers, both the general public and topic experts. And there are ideal ways for us to have the collected feedback disseminated to us. I suggest we be specific about what we want to see and how we want to see it, and ask for the tool to be modified for this use. Sydney Poore/FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 16:00, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Support under the condition proposed by Tom (LT), above. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 20:56, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Support -- while there are potential pitfalls, it will be good for a lot of articles. POIS22 (talk) 21:15, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Strongly, strongly oppose. This may be the only time I ever post on this page. The AFT5 tool resulted in massive waste of time of editors. Almost zero "feedback" was useful and even the information classified as "useful" was usually at the level of "needs more photos" for pages that already had six images, or "needs more information about [completely off-topic information]." It was deliberately not added to medical articles because even the people who created it realised that what you would get is "so I have this funny lump here, does that mean I have Disease XXX?" We have few enough knowledgeable and wiki-skilled editors in this area; you should not be wasting your time in this way. Even having to take the time to point to the medical disclaimer is bad use of your time. There was never a benefit to this tool - it's why it isn't used anymore. The software is very dodgy and would require rewriting and then ongoing maintenance; it's just plain a bad investment of time and energy on the part of everyone. Risker (talk) 05:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
@Risker:. We need more reader feedback. Given your opposition to AFT5, how would you propose we get it? • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 06:23, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
What do you want the feedback for? You need to really know the answer to that question before you know what type of tool is best suited. We know from the experience of the AFT5 tool that readers who wrote anything were (a) asking for information that was either inappropriate for Wikipedia to provide - a very serious risk for medical articles or (b) making suggestions for "improvement" that were heavily biased or were inappropriate for the particular article ("GMOs kill people, why are you supporting them?" or "Why doesn't the 7/7 article mention [name your favourite conspiracy theory]?") or (c) were personal stories (e.g., on the article about a certain city, "I was there last summer, and you should talk about the great restaurants!") Less than 1% of feedback was either actionable or an assessment of the value/quality of the information provided. Meanwhile, all of the feedback had to be reviewed because people posted really inappropriate information (BLP violations, personal information like phone numbers, personal attacks, editor abuse) that needed to be removed from public view, thus making a lot of work for almost no beneficial gain. Even if there was actionable feedback, that still required someone being able and willing to act upon it.
Effective feedback tools, especially on a project that is deliberately intended to be highly transparent, are very difficult to design. They're also almost always very labour-intensive. Unless you have a very clear idea of exactly what kind of feedback you want to elicit, and you have an action plan on how you will address the feedback you get that does not impose additional workload or burden on editors outside of the project, I'd suggest that your statement that you "need" more reader feedback is perhaps premature at best. One of the groups significantly impacted when it was turned on before were the oversighters, who were hitting about 50-70 requests a month for this tool alone; it made up about 15-20% of the suppression workload. Risker (talk) 07:03, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

For starters I would like a tool which is easily visible to the reader, with obvious function, which allows me to specify the type of feedback I want, will allow the reader to easily abort if/when they realise this is not where they need to be, and is only activated on demand, by the person/s who will get the notification, and who is/are looking for the specified feedback. i.e, a tool, not a spam generator. Ideally it would allow me to reply to the user, usually needed to clarify the feedback, as many people do not know how to explain what they want in the first attempt. Technically the talk page should do most of these things, but it does not. Partly, I suspect, because many if not most readers do not know it is there, or if they do, don't have a clue how to use it (our user-unfriendly software again), and partly because the talk page is not a good way to ask people for specific information when you are fairly sure they will never read it. This should impose no burden on people other than those voluntarily watching the feedback system for the specific article, other than creating it in the first place. I speak only for myself, but I think such a tool would serve the purposes of this project, and others, adequately. By the way, I made use of AFT5, and agree with most of your criticism. I suggested several improvements, but nothing happened. It was mostly a waste of time, but a small number of articles that I watch were significantly improved by using reader feedback. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 10:28, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
@Risker: Both Peter and I found the AFT useful for scuba-related articles where a significant proportion of the feedback indicated deficiencies in articles that we could address. In helping to expose issues in articles from a reader's perspective, such feedback helped prioritise our efforts and allowed us to "see the wood from the trees". Does that help illustrate what we would use feedback for? According to the report, "12% of posts were marked as useful". We may have been lucky at WPSCUBA, but my impression was that we had better results than that - this implies that a particular project, like WPMED, may achieve better results than average, if the tool is well-designed. I believe we have a strong and very active group of editors at WPMED and still maintain that we have sufficient resources to cope with feedback. This would be especially true if there were a mechanism for notifications of feedback to appear on a sub-page of this project, a little like how the recent changes feed appears, perhaps? I take your point about oversighters, but there are currently 43 users with that right. If a 25% increase in their numbers would have compensated for the extra workload over the entire project with 6,821,097 articles, I estimate that just 0.09 more oversighters would be needed to deal with work arising from feedback from the 33,596 articles in WPMED's scope. Heck, even I would volunteer to do that job, just one day per fortnight. --RexxS (talk) 16:27, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I think we already know what the (useful) feedback will be on most articles: Readers want to know the prognosis. That was the #1 request on all the disease-related articles that I followed when AFT5 was open. They also asked for pictures, but that was the suggested feedback, so that might be overrepresented. And they wanted articles written in plain old English, not in medicalese. I also found it useful on occasion (also more than the 12% average), but since the #1 request remains unfulfilled, I don't think that we really need it to be able to improve the articles.
On a more practical level, I doubt that this wish will be fulfilled. There are some open questions about whether the code needs dev time before it could run again. There a sitewide RFC led to it being disabled here, and this is "local consensus" at best. Also, unless someone here is an oversighter and wants to volunteer to manage the inevitable problems – User:Fluffernutter's here occasionally, but I doubt that she wants to deal with this again – then I think that the opposition from oversighters should be taken seriously. It would not be kind or collegial of us to volunteer to increase their workload over their objections. And stuff that needs oversighting can't be left around for a fortnight: it needs to be killed as soon as it's noticed, ideally within minutes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, that was my (unsuccessful) attempt to inject a little levity. I was not suggesting that we wait two weeks to perform oversight, only that the additional workload on oversighters would seem to be equivalent to a requirement for an extra oversighter one day every couple of weeks. Perhaps I should have made the analogy that one extra oversighter would likely be able to accommodate feedback from around a dozen projects the size of WPMED. --RexxS (talk) 19:56, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm an oversighter and I'm happy to help with this as needed. Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) (talk) 15:37, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
More specifically I would like to get it activated on at least some medical articles for research purposes. It allows us as community members to ask specific questions of our readers. We need to do more of this. User:Risker would you reconsider if this was only on ~100 articles? We could also only have the results viewable by logged in users or even admins / people with the researcher tag if we so desired. I have a number of other researchers who are also requesting it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:08, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
User:Risker would you be okay with its use for research purposes? And by research I do not mean research to improve the tool but research to determine what our readers think? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Generally speaking, I think it is always a bad idea to activate software that is completely unsupported by anyone and was known to need significant rewriting even at the time that it was used. It is kind of the equivalent of restarting a car that hasn't been running for a couple of years and was taken off the road because it was belching smoke in order to test whether or not it improves air quality. I suggest if you want to start it up again, first it is necessary to have a (non-WMF) developer to carefully review the code, ensure that it meets the expectations for publicly visible user-created content, and then agree to remain available for any future issues. (Note: Expectations for user-created content are that it must be able to be deleted, it must be able to be edited by others, it must be able to be suppressed, and it must show up in checkuser, recent changes, and publicly-available logs specific to the content type. Any user-created content is essentially "community property", and it must be able to be curated by the community.) I specify a non-WMF developer because this is an extension that has consciously been de-activated by the WMF based on the results of the earlier trial (and let's be clear, the previous activation *was* a trial), and this isn't appropriate for even community tech because the community has already spoken on this issue. I remain gravely concerned that you will get a lot of personal stories and personal information from readers who do not understand that whatever they write will be publicly visible, or perhaps believe that a medical professional will contact them to provide them with advice or person-specific information, if the tool is tested on a page pertaining to a specific illness, condition, or treatment. Such posts should almost always be suppressed ("hiding" isn't nearly enough since almost everyone can see the hidden posts). And I'm still not seeing any evidence that there has been consideration of exactly what type of feedback is being sought, and what the action plan is to address both the desirable and the undesirable feedback. I will remind you that there is already a feedback mechanism - the talk page of the article - and that a first step may simply be to include a banner pointing to that, which can probably be done by a template rather than activating a disused extension with its heavy overhead. Risker (talk) 01:45, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes not sure what shape the peice of software is in. I agree it is not important enough to deserve either foundation or tech team resources. I only propose it if it is as simple as 10 to 20 minutes to turn it on again. Yes more or less the same thing can be done with templates. I was thinking it would work well as a format for people providing ratings for hotels and restaurants on Wikivoyage but that is another matter. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:05, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Oppose. Risker's argument is convincing. KateWishing (talk) 14:04, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Moderate oppose. I actually don't care all that much, because the feedback isn't hard to ignore. I wonder how many of the supporters actually tried to use it in its earlier incarnation? I certainly did. I was initially quite enthusiastic, and made a serious effort to look at the feedback and react to it. But after a month or so I ran out of steam -- I just wasn't getting enough value from it to motivate the effort it required. I can't see any reason why things would be different now. Looie496 (talk) 15:58, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Looie496 why don't we give it a chance and see, DocJames said about 100 articles (seems fair), and the result can only be positive--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:37, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I thought I made it clear that I already gave it a chance and saw. As I said, it won't bother me much either way. I can always just ignore it. Looie496 (talk) 20:18, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:25, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Moderate oppose per Risker & Looie. My experiences were the same the last time. You got perhaps one comment per 500,000 views, & most were misplaced, missing the point & purpose of WP, if not just moronic. One or two were useful, but looking at them just wasn't a productive use of time. aren;t some of the old ones still acessible? Johnbod (talk) 04:20, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Oppose pending defined boundaries I am in favor of experimentation but not in favor of establishing projects which can consume volunteer time without being documented or supported. One way that could make me change my oppose to support would be defining a limit to the number of articles which have this tool turned on, suggesting a time checkpoint for reconsidering this experiment, and promising some reporting of outcomes. Here are some boundaries which, if set, would make me feel encouraged to support - turn on for 100 articles, watch for 12 months, then if by 15 months there must be reporting and reconsideration of experiment status. If the feedback is not being considered or used and if otherwise there are not signs that this tool is having a positive effect then it should be turned off. I feel that the tool is a net harm if it results in volunteers committing labor to make suggestions but in return there is no one responding to feedback. Based on past usage, we should assume that Wikipedians will not respond to feedback and that there is no reason to believe that allowing users to give feedback results in a positive outcome. I am willing to reconsider but I would like this project framed as a question in some light community-managed research. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:39, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Discuss

The pilot was run with the purpose of engaging readers, rather than as a tool to help editors, and was evaluated as such. Looking at the project report at mw:Article feedback/Version 5/Report, the two major obstacles were the editor time involved in moderating the feedback, and the opposition of the majority of editors on each site. If we are to have the tool turned back on for medical articles (+ anatomy, physiology & pharma, perhaps), we are going to have to make the case that (i) there is a benefit to our editors as well as readers; and that (ii) we have sufficient editor resources within our WikiProject to cope with the feedback without straining those resources. I believe we are capable of meeting those two requirements, but I still feel we will have to spend some time and effort in making the case. On balance, I think that's a net benefit and I support for that reason. --RexxS (talk) 23:36, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I can't remember the details, but there are problems with the software and particularly the user interface, which is somewhat confusing to the reader and elicits a high percentage of useless responses. That aside, I found it (marginally) more useful than not. Getting it restored for a major project might get the coders to respond to requests for improvements, which would be a step towards getting it acceptable to more of the community. However it should be implemented as an opt-in, to be switched on for an article where someone will watch it, as it does not yet have any way to notify an interested user directly of a change. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 05:34, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Maybe only activatable by an admin or researcher? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:10, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd have thought that if you want to gather useful data about the benefits (or otherwise) of the feedback tool, it would be better to try it out on a random selection of articles, rather than selecting specific ones. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:22, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

In an ideal world there would be the same amount of activity over all articles, but the fact is many of us have only a subset we work on. Activating the feedback tool randomly would garner the same useless responses as in a site-wide trial. If we focus activation we can analyze the reasons behind specific responses.

I find it interesting that the most vocal opposistion is from people who do not engage in our project. I would hope the members of WikiProject Medicine could be allowed to decide for themselves what is the best use of their time instead of having someone uninvolved dictate it for them. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 20:46, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Would it be possible to include both a scale rating (as in version 4 of the tool) as well as a feedback form with specific comments? Currently there is no easy way for readers of Wikipedia to give feedback on how useful they found the article. Version 4's four ratings for trustworthiness, objectivity, completeness and writing quality does not cover this. Does anyone know if it would be difficult to change the questions? Mrjohncummings (talk) 00:30, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I would be happy to just have it work on a small set of article. Articles would be changed from time to time. Once people have collected data on those articles or no longer need the data it would be turned off on those article.

I am not proposing this tool for general use. Only as a tool for editors or researchers who want it and will use the data. Agree we do not need to collect unneeded data. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:10, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

The last time it was in use there was absolutely nothing a user could do to mitigate the extremely poorly chosen features and customise it to ask more specific and useful questions of the reader (and stop it from encouraging useless input). I asked. If reactivated as it stands it will produce the same old streams of garbage input with the very rare bit of gold. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:22, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I had this

Tell us what you think of this article.

in a quotebox at the top of Cancer pain (where the infobox usually goes) for about a year until last April. See permalink. It linked to an edit notice above the article's talk page "new section" edit box that said

Please add comments below. We're particularly interested in hearing what's missing or wrong and whether the article is clear and readable, but any ideas on improvement would be welcome. You can find your comment (and others' comments) and any replies by clicking the "talk" tab at the top of the article.

It generated no comments (but that's probably because the article is perfect ). Maybe if you ask specifically for expert commentary, or ask for input on a specific aspect of the article people will be more likely to respond.

As someone above suggested, if you use this method, you can monitor the responses just by watchlisting the talk pages. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:20, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Anthonyhcole, I think we may be looking at the same solution. Could you comment on the proposal below for "Building a new tool"? • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:30, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Yep. It's effectively the same thing. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:07, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Building a new tool

Perhaps a template can be developed which will do what is needed (as Risker suggested above). Something that can be added to the bottom of an article, maybe with a big button with thumbs up/thumbs down icons and some text inviting feedback, that when clicked takes the user to a talk page subpage, opens an edit, fills in a feedback header, prompts a few responses if desired and instructs the user how to abort or save. Something like this would be customisable to suit a wide range of applications, and would be open to anyone to improve. If, of course, it is possible. I am no templating expert. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:32, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

This approach has several advantages over AFT5. (not difficult to achieve)

You can watch the relevant pages
It can be customised easily
It can be used by anyone who takes on the responsibility of looking after the results
It can be removed from any place it causes problems. No admin burden involved - the project can manage it.
It is essentially a talk page, just with training wheels. Talk pages are standard and already covered by policy. No RfC should be required. It does have some MOS implications, but MEDMOS should be able to cover it within this project.
It could be portable to other projects (like Wikivoyage, as James suggested)

As a starter, I suggest interested parties make up a list of:

what they want the tool to look like on the article page
what information they want to get from the readers
how they propose to get useful information out of the reader
how they intend to prevent/minimise oversight burden, and how the burden which actually gets through in spite of everything should be handled • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:47, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

- Thanks User:Pbsouthwood. Agree that this will do the trick without needing to restore a controversial piece of software that is unmaintained. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:02, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd be curious to know how many of our 30,000 medical articles actually receive reader comments in an average month. I suspect it's a very, very tiny percentage. If so, to measure any effect from an invitation to comment, we should probably trial it on many, many articles.

If you're talking about a time-limited trial, I'd support trialling it on a very large random sample, assuming the invitation isn't hidious. I'd also support putting it at the top of the article where everyone will see it. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:03, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I would say each person should trial it on as many articles as they are prepared to include in their own watchlist, and deal with the feedback. Start small, if it is slow, add more until you are getting a satisfactory rate. I see no point in going random. I would only do it for articles I would be prepared to work on myself on the principle that if you ask for feedback you deal with it and don't leave someone else to pick up the pieces, as that will probably bring down the rest of Wikipedia like a ton of bricks, half of them claiming they told you so, and the other half demanding you prove you had consensus.
As all comments are dated, it is relatively easy to keep track of changes. A suitably skilled person could probably write an app to give a monthly statistical report, but not me.

Top of the article may be a better place for visibility. We could try both, see if there is a difference. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 14:45, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes agree with User:Pbsouthwood individual editors should only ask for feedback on articles they are willing to full up on. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:55, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

The tool should contain a maintenance category tag to make it easier to find instances and to help get statistics. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 06:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

What next

Do we take this further or abandon the idea? I see three options at present:

Abandon the whole thing as not worth the effort. (default option)
Push for turning AFT5 back on against probable massive opposition.
look further into the practicability and design of a new tool. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 06:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I plan to abandon it. I think we can manage with templates. This may have been slightly easier but not worth the effort due to the oposition. Also agree it is not important enough to deserve tech time. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Who will code the templates? Any volunteers? (I don't have the full skill set myself, but would like to help where I can) • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 10:08, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Post orgasmic illness syndrome

Postorgasmic illness syndrome (POIS) is a rare condition characterized by debilitating symptoms following orgasm that last for a few hours to several days. The phenomenon was first described in 2002. POIS is listed on the "Rare Diseases" website of the NIH: https://rarediseases.info.nih.gov/gard/10809/postorgasmic-illness-syndrome/resources/1 . There are a few (literally, just a few) papers about it on PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Postorgasmic+Illness .

If you have any more information about POIS, please add it to the article.
Please insert relevant information about POIS into relevant articles. --POIS22 (talk) 15:25, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

[9] this might help (there aren't many Google books available)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

This source is good though [10] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:58, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. POIS22 (talk) 15:37, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I am very happy this article now exists and appears to be in such a well-developed state, but I do have a quibble. Am I the only one that thinks all the ^{[s 2]} or ^{[n 1]} or ^{[w 1]} citations contribute to the related concept of wp:citation clutter and distract readers away from the actual content? I find that it decreases readability and that it is quite distracting. I am an experienced editor, but I have never seen this system used and I have no idea what it means. Would a normal encyclopedia go to such length? It seems like it is simply unencyclopedic and distracting overkill. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 15:27, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

yes, sourcing is getting problematic. i was going to work on that this weekend but got distracted with old drugs. i hope to get to it soon. Jytdog (talk) 15:32, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

When I found the article, I was very confused by all the references. Higher quality references (academic papers) were jumbled together with news articles and websites. I am the one who separated the references into the groups because I actually thought (and still think) that it would reduce the clutter. I know other articles don't do this. But, just take a look at the References section. You can immediately find the academic papers and secondary sources.

How do you suggest to fix this? Maybe reduce the number of reference groups to 2? One group could be academic papers and secondary sources and the other group could be everything else?

Please respond on the article's talk page -- I rarely check this page. Thank you for your input. POIS22 (talk) 21:25, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

MCOTM?

It's been awfully quiet over at transverse myelitis. Just mentioning it in case people forgot about it... TylerDurden8823 (talk) 20:40, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I finished the causes section,--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:44, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Beryllium lymphocyte proliferation test and Beryllium poisoning

Dear medical experts: The first of these two titles was about to be deleted as a stale draft. It had a lot of good information and references, but much of it was not specifically about the test, and also there was excessive technical detail. Rather than see the work deleted, I moved some of the content to Beryllium poisoning, redirected the draft and moved it to its current mainspace titie. Now, perhaps the experts here will decide that there should be an article about this specific test; in that case, by all means please feel free to revert my additions to the Beryllium poisoning article, undo the redirection and have a go at trimming the article about the test.

In any case, please check the appropriateness of the text and sources which I moved from the draft to Beryllium poisoning. Also, I noticed that in a couple of places the article appears to be giving advice.—Anne Delong (talk) 13:09, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll take a look at this today - I've got some good resources on hand. Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) (talk) 16:51, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Introducing WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health (and myself)

Greetings, WikiProject Medicine,

I am James Hare, also known as User:Harej on Wikipedia. I would like to introduce myself as the newest Wikipedian in Residence at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. I will be working alongside Emily to improve Wikipedia's coverage of occupational safety and health issues; my role specifically focuses on training NIOSH staff and affiliates.

As part of my efforts, I have organized a WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health as our central hub for organizing our content improvement efforts with the community. I encourage anyone interested in OSH issues specifically to participate on the project. I am also interested in developing a central set of educational resources for people training others about Wikipedia, including cheat sheets, visualizations, presentation slide decks, and step-by-step guides. I would be very interested to see what you have all developed, especially since we work with similar audiences, and I would like to know what you want to see in such materials.

If you have any questions, my talk page is always open. Thank you, James Hare (NIOSH) (talk) 17:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

welcome--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:01, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Nephronophthisis and Pancreatic pseudocyst

have done a few edits on these articles, would appreciate any help, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:26, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

OR

Just wanted to confirm Draft:The frameless copper IUD as WP:OR. Am I correct? Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 18:57, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Not sure. It's a topic of this article here. The tone of the draft at various points worries me however. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

FoCuS,

Can you explain the problem you're worried about? "OR" means that the information on this page has never been published anywhere else in the world. Why do you think that an article with inline citations to eight sources contains information that has never been published anywhere else in the world, e.g., in those eight sources? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Well it reads like synthesis that tries to convey this particular IUD in a positive light, which is unencyclopaedic. I am trying to figure out what sort of feedback I should leave the submitter. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 20:10, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

this article is similiarIUD_with_copper--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Looks like a promotional piece to me.--Wikimedes (talk) 21:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

That's exactly what I'm referring to. So decline on grounds it exists, perhaps suggest the submitter they add a tidbit to the appropriate subsection? Let me know, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 15:30, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

That's called "POV pushing" rather than "original research". We have jargon for almost everything. ;-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:24, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

At least one of the images used has copyright concerns per [11] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:16, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

yes, it appears it might--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:30, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Some of the text is also nearly copied and pasted Source

The design of the frameless copper IUD, due to its absence of a horizontal dimension and flexibility, explains its adaptation in cavities of every size and shape. These characteristics do not allow the uterus to exert expulsive forces on the IUD, in contrast with conventional IUDs. [[12]]

Our text

The design of the frameless copper IUD, due to its absence of a horizontal crossarm and its flexibility, explains its adaptation to uterine cavities of every size and shape. These characteristics eliminate the ability of the uterus to exert expulsive forces on the frameless IUD.

Now the text is CC BY SA NC. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:20, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

A number of other images here [13] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:22, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

one image was removed [[14]] there are 2 images left that appear at the above site--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:46, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

What is "Attention deficit disorder"?

We have a RfC here Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:29, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:03, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Cause vs Pathophysiology

Articles about diseases have a "Cause" and a "Pathophysiology" section. What's the difference between the two? I am working on the Postorgasmic illness syndrome article. Just finished the "Cause" section. Not sure what kind of material would go into the "Pathophysiology" section. POIS22 (talk) 21:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

My understanding has always been that "pathophysiology" describes the causal connection and mechanisms and processes between the cause and the effect while "cause" is for the underlying origin. See also Pathophysiology. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:43, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure others will explain better but if the article is carefully written, causes contains a list of etiologic factors (eg smoking) and pathophysiology details exactly how the cells are misbehaving to give the signs and symptoms of the condition. For what it's worth I often end up just writing o ne section called causes which contains all this information. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 21:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles should always be followed--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Of course. The most important part about MEDMOS's "Sections" advice is that the sections need to be adapted, re-arranged, and combined for some articles. You cannot follow MEDMOS correctly if you use exactly the same sections in every article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:29, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd argue that "cause" is really aetiology leading to pathogenesis, whereas the specifics of what is happening in an active disease state is pathophysiology. --—Cyclonenim | Chat 11:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

We use "cause" for the overview of what brings about a condition either. This is either genetics or enviromental. It includes risk factors.

We use mechanisms / pathophysiology for the underlying changes that bring about the symptoms / disease. How the causes result in the symptoms. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:03, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

If I'm understanding your description correctly, the "cause" of influenza is infection by a type of virus, and the "pathogenesis" is stuff like the immune system's reaction to the virus (e.g., dumping a bunch of IL-2, which produces most of those lovely flu-like symptoms). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:28, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes exactly. The complicated stuff most people gloss over. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:20, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Help with re-drafting an article on an article on 'Altruism in Medicine Institute'

I drafted an article on the above institute, the U.S. foundation created by Prof. Barry Kerzin, but it has been deleted for being 'too promotional'. Being fairly new to Wikipedia I asked for advice, how to improve it for publication, from the person who deleted it, and he/she kindly replied "I would say that you should definitely get someone from WP:MEDICINE to help you with the article, since they will be used to writing medical themed articles and can think of good ways to rephrase things." I have retrieved the text of the draft to work on and saved it in my sandbox. Would any kind and expert person be interested in assisting in this? If so, how to proceed? Many thanks in advance, MacPraughan (talk) 14:20, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

For starters would be some independent refs for the section mentioned. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:24, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Doc James, I have now found and added a couple there, Youtube and Skoll World Forum. MacPraughan (talk) 14:52, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi MacPraughan,

What I see at that article is a very common "mistake": it talks about the "mission" and what's "intended", but it doesn't talk about what it has actually accomplished. It's really unusual for anyone to care about that. (Think about a local food bank: do you want to read their mission statement, or do you want to know how many people had enough food to eat?) Also, perhaps I am unusually cynical, but my immediate conclusion is that it's done absolutely nothing – which might be true, since it sounds like it's new and is basically a vehicle for one guy's work, but if it's actually done anything beyond filling out some government paperwork and trying to get organized, then it would be better to talk about that, then to write glittering generalities about what the founder's high hopes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:16, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/CAM (Controlled Ankle Motion) walking boot

Hello medical experts. Is there already an article about this under another title? If not, it seems to me there should be. Is this one okay?—Anne Delong (talk) 15:31, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh, it seems that I have reported this before, so I guess it should be moved to mainspace. What should the title be?—Anne Delong (talk) 15:35, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I am supportive of one at walking boot Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:35, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Orthotics#Lower-limb orthoses seems to cover the general area, have a look and see if a specific article is still warranted. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:24, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

How different is this from an Ankle-foot orthosis (redirects almost to the section LSD linked)? If it's the same thing, then maybe we should merge. (I suspect that we might have just enough information to justify a separate article, but I'm not certain.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:51, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I will take a picture of one. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:53, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I looked at Orthotics#Lower-limb orthoses, but found it difficult to understand. On the other hand, the article being discussed isn't very detailed yet. Are all four Orthotics#Ankle-foot orthosis types generally called "walking boots" or "CAM boots"? The "Orthotics" article starts out "Orthotics is a specialty within the medical field concerned with the design, manufacture and application of orthoses", so it seems to me that this is a general article about this field. If there was a section about every orthotic gadget, the article would be very long indeed. You'll notice that the "Foot orthosis" section has a link to the main article Shoe insert. I have moved the draft to Walking boot for now, so it won't be deleted. If you medical guys decide it's not needed, it can be redirected; or, you may wish to enlarge it and have less detail in the Orthotics article.—Anne Delong (talk) 03:20, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/WhatsMyM3

Dear medical experts: Here again is an abandoned draft which next some expertise to evaluate.—Anne Delong (talk) 01:50, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

as per the prior reviewer the references are not properly placed...(difficult to say if MEDRS or WP RS compliant)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:02, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

The refs are properly placed; they just don't use the 100% optional ref tags as the mark up. The previous reviewer failed to follow the reviewing instructions, which you'll find at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions, under ==General standards and invalid reasons for declining a submission==.

Anne, this is really a WP:WEB question rather than a medical one. I don't know whether those two news articles would be counted as an unimportant "flash in the pan" or as solid contributions to notability under the usual standards for software. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:45, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

We already have an article about this checklist at My Mood Monitor Screen. WhatsMyM3 is just the official website for it. KateWishing (talk) 18:10, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

If it is the only official website, it should probably be a redirect. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

KateWishing, AndyTheGrump, I looked at both Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/WhatsMyM3 and My Mood Monitor Screen, and neither one mentioned the other. However, this source confirms that they are both the same questionnaire, and most of the information was the same, so I added some sources to the mainspace article, and wrote three sentences in my own words to connect the two titles. Since I didn't move any text from the draft, I just moved the draft to WhatsMyM3 as a redirect without merging. Thanks for making the connection; from the text on the two pages I would never have known.—Anne Delong (talk) 04:09, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Let's turn this into a Good Article

I have recently substantially rewritten and expanded the article on postorgasmic illness syndrome. I'd like to turn it into a Good Article. Please help by making any improvements that you think will get it there.

I'd love to get your feedback, here or on the article's talk page. I've also listed it on Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Assessment, hoping to raise its quality rating to B-Class. Once that's done, I plan to send it for Wikipedia:Peer review and then Wikipedia:Good article nominations.

Please send me any comments on how to best improve the quality of the article and get it to GA rating. POIS22 (talk) 20:38, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

will look--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:24, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Barth syndrome/review

[15] deem this (MEDRS compliant) article a good read, thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:30, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

More than one person has asked you not to make this kind of post. There uncountablereliable sources on the internet, and they do not need to be posted here estranged from any relevance to an article and from the wikiproject. This is not a repository of medical news deemed a good read. Please see WP:NOTAFORUM. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 20:30, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

its a review for any article (cardiomyopathy) that can use it (it was indicated it needed to be MEDRS compliant [16] #46)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

This post constitutes spam and is entirely unbeneficial to anyone. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 02:24, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

refer to prior answer, thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

This post would be best on the talk page of the cardiomyopathy article I think. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:34, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Foreskin Man

really? this dif called my attention to it. Jytdog (talk)

very curious (and different)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:18, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

This is part of a trend toward medicalization of sex and a backlash against it. I went to a presentation in which a doctor said that an aphrodisiac drug called Flibanserin is being promoted as advancing women's rights. The clinical trials seem ambiguous or that the drug is harmful, but the company trying to get FDA approval with a strategy including public seeking outcry that the FDA promotes male sexuality but withholds drugs from women. The patent for this drug is held by a company which has that patent as their sole asset. I do not understand pharma marketing, and maybe the presentation of this drug to the marketplace is orderly, but it seems suspect to me when a holding company is created only for the purpose of marketing one drug.

Sexuality is a battleground. I did ethics review on some clinical trials which recommend circumcision for people at high risk of contracting HIV and deciding what information to give the public in health education campaigns is difficult. I think Wikipedia has the best information of any source but the reality is still that all available information is confusing, poor quality, and not compiled thoughtfully. Wherever there is discussion of circumcision there are people who are angry.

It means a lot to me that Wikipedia has coverage of sexuality. Most people in the Western World have no other ways to access information on this topic, and people elsewhere frequently have no other options for information. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:25, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk on the influence of social opinions on medical policy continued elsewhere. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:16, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Translation tool is cool

At Wikimania 2015 a new beta feature was introduced to assist with translations. See documentation at mw:Extension:Translate, but actually, that documentation is boring and does not communicate well. I think the only way to understand it is to use it. I am about to give instructions for using it.

This tool actually works and it is worth testing even if you only speak English. Consider choosing any Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Health_and_medicine and translating it from English Wikipedia to Simple English Wikipedia.

Here are instructions -

Go to your settings to the Beta Features Tab. This should be a direct link - Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-betafeatures
Click the "Content Translation" box to turn it on
Go to Simple English Wikipedia
Go to your contributions page. Simple English calls this "My changes".
There should be a big obvious button at top which says "translation". Click it.
An interface opens. It asks some questions. Give it the featured article you like on English Wikipedia which does not exist in Simple English.
Translate as much as you like.

Here are my thoughts.

It works, and it is intuitive
I could never imagine typical people enjoying Wikipedia translation. Now I can imagine people doing translation for their first edits.
This tool does a great job of migrating citations in translations.
I got bored and just translated article leads. I can imagine others would do only this much also. For this reason, I think we should reconsider citations in the lead.

If anyone else tries out the tool then please share reactions. I think this could be big for WikiProject Medicine. For those who do not know, there is a health translation project at WP:TTF, the "Translation Task Force". CFCF and Doc James are chief instigators there. Now it seems like it is much easier for more people to get involved. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

seems like a good effort to get involved in.--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:17, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

IP edits on Psychiatry

What do people make of these edits on psychiatry [17]? -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 13:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

this ref seems dated per MEDRS ...Shorter, E (1997), A History of Psychiatry: From the Era of the Asylum to the Age of Prozac, New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., ISBN 978-0-471-24531-5...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:53, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Those aren't medical claims. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 14:04, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

That material used to be in the article. On June 3 I moved it into History of psychiatry, which was then a redirect, because I thought the History section of the Psychiatry article had become unduly long. This was part of a general cleanup motivated by Talk:Psychiatry#RFC: Proposal to revert article Psychiatry to version of 28 June 2012. Doc James made a bunch of other improvements at that time. Looie496 (talk) 14:26, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

AfD

Please see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Phytoserm Jytdog (talk) 15:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:51, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Essential medicines

A discussion on the organization of a medication article [18] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:35, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

give opinion--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:20, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Free access to sources

There's a note up at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 139#Wikipedia Library: Running a SiteNotice for logged-in users about advertising WP:The Wikipedia Library's free accounts to access paywalled material. If any of you haven't signed up, or haven't looked around at the newer options, then please do so soon. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:03, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

great information--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Tissue (biology) to Tissue

Discussion about whether the main page should be a disambiguation page or refer to biological tissues at Talk:Tissue (disambiguation)-- CFCF 🍌 (email) 23:28, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:37, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Idiopathic sclerosing mesenteritis and Tropical spastic paraparesis

have done a few edits on these articles, any help would be appreciated, thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:44, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes it needed help. I have done some on causes, mimics and diagnosis. I will leave it for a while so as not to clash with you! Jrfw51 (talk) 17:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

great editing--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:37, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

EnteraGam

Can someone who knows more than me about this stuff take a look at this one? Aside from being written as an advertisement it seems to give directions on use and whatnot. Not sure if that's appropriate. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:25, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Have merged to Serum-derived bovine immunoglobulin/protein isolate. Still requires more work. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:47, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

@Doc James: Thank you! §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Energy drinks

I just went through Energy drink and Red Bull, which were filled with non-MEDRS sources being used for health claims. I've cleaned up the worst parts, but given their poor condition I wanted to bring this to the attention of other interested editors. Thanks, Sunrise (talk) 05:46, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

will look...on energy drinks reference #25 is dated and #9 is non-MEDRS compliant (have tagged with inline citations both)....the latter article reference #33 is dated and #30 is primary where a secondary source would be most beneficial per MEDRS,(have tagged both inline citations) thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:51, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Bloodless medicine

Information about bloodless medicine is available via this web page.

Bloodless Medicine | Blood Transfusion Alternatives | JW.ORG Medical Library

—Wavelength (talk) 16:16, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

interesting--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:38, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

We have an article at Bloodless surgery, and it's incomplete and weak on everything except name-checking historical proponents. It barely mentions HIV, for example, despite that being a major force behind reducing the need for blood transfusions during surgery.

There's no general page about Bloodless medicine, which would include things like the reduction in blood transfusions for people with leukemias or hemophilia (also major practice changes compared to 1980, caused by HIV). A decent article on the general subject, if drafted outside the mainspace, could easily qualify for a WP:DYK spot on the main page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:54, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Warfarin brand names, sourcing?

Waran is a brand name of Warfarin and I added the lede and infobox of that article. What I'm not entirely sure of is how we choose to reference brand names. I feel we ought to, but it also feels superfluous to add a citation for each name, or should they only be cited in the infobox? Drugs.com is good, but currently that infobox only points to Coumadin [19] -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 10:00, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

IMO...we should use generic name, however you have presented the names in a very reserved manner which helps the article...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I have moved some of the brands to the body of the article as there are dozens. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:02, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

AfC submission 13/08

Draft:Sollpura (Liprotamase). Could anyone have a look? Thanks! FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 00:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

so..first, Sollpura^TM should be replaced to Sollpura (as per prior reviewers comment)...reference #5,6 are non-MEDRS (b/c they are not journal, textbooks or position statement)...finally a number of other reference are either pharmaceutical literature or clinical trials (one misbehaving mouse does not mean a lot) while one appreciates the enthusiasm of this level of research and its findings only after a review where several studies have weighed-in and the results replicated should it be noteworthy, having said that if it is noteworthy for some other reason then it should pass (however I suggest a second opinion,.. I believe it should be declined)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:52, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Should go at the generic name Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

AfD

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plant-based diet Jytdog (talk) 13:27, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

give opinion(gave mine--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

A bit off topic,,,

I know it's only marginally related, but could someone take a quick look at Dog appeasing pheromone? It seems a bit off, but I don't have the background to properly evaluate it. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 20:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

http://vetsci.co.uk/2011/09/27/dealing-with-canine-anxiety-and-phobias/ says "...the Journal of American Veterinary Medical Association have published systematic reviews of pheromone associated clinical trials. In these reviews they suggest that the majority of the clinical trials provide insufficient evidence." this seems to be a direct contradiction to the claims in the article. If this was an engineering article, I would add a section based upon [ http://avmajournals.avma.org/doi/abs/10.2460/javma.236.12.1308 ], but I am wary about anything even remotely medicine-related. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:55, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Rib fracture and Renal artery stenosis

did a few edits to these important articles, any help is welcomed, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Patient with Marfans

I recently saw that Salubrious Toxin did some editing on Marfan syndrome. I went through the open journals for images and the only one I was able to find that was conclusively Marfan's was this:

I've cropped off her head for privacy purposes. Is this image suitable for use in the article on account of her age? See [20]. Doc James, you've had comments about this before? -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 13:32, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I signaled the newly established WP:WikiProject Women. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:39, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Please do not crop off the head. Please use the entire image. They did release it under an open license. And I image got appropriate consent. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

How is this of interest to that wikiproject? Matthew Ferguson (talk) 19:47, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Matthew Ferguson 57 In the past people interested in women's issues have sought to comment on model consent of women in medical images. One case is at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Moment of Birth. I would like for Wikipedia to develop more clarity on what is best. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:04, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

That patient has a remarkable number of comorbidities, to the point that I doubt the image is really useful for any article on a single disease. Since there is a question of cropping the picture to not show her head, then I'll point out just one, which is craniostenosis. That would change the shape of the head and therefore be misleading if that's presented as how a Marfan's patient looks.

Also, it's a photo taken in a private place of an identifiable intellectually disabled 13 year old wearing only her panties. The consent standard for that is very high: I would not be surprised if Commons required the uploader to assert that he has a clear statement from the legal guardians not just that "uploading it to Commons" or "putting it in Wikipedia" is okay, but that they agree that it could be modified and used for non-educational purposes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

From the paper:

Consent
Written informed consent was obtained from the patient's parents for the publication of this case report and accompanying images. A copy of the consent form is available for review by the Editor-in-Chief of this journal.

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

I don't think you can get more clear than that. On the other hand I will not personally upload an uncropped version, although I will not object with anyone else doing so from: the full image. As for comorbidities the only one that isn't directly associated with Marfan's is craniostenosis as far as I can tell, so it should be a good image (see Ghent criteria). -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 09:31, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

While I don't dispute the copyright question, nor do I doubt that the legally-appropriate consent forms were signed, I believe that we still ought to be reluctant to post identifiable images of this – or any – patient's face, absent a very strong and specific educational reason to do so. (And indeed, some of the comments above note the presence of atypical comorbidities which make this a less-than-ideal case to present.) Given Wikipedia's reach and wide accessibility, we quite literally have the power to make this nearly-naked, intellectually-disabled, teenaged girl the poster child for Marfan syndrome. This is a power that we should use only with the utmost caution. It is likely that the image we choose will stay on Wikipedia's article for years to come.

Bluntly, I do also suspect that this patient's parents may not have fully appreciated the consequences (indeed, this particular consequence) of releasing their daughter's images for use in an open access journal article under a CC license. While there's no difference in copyright, there's a huge difference in exposure in going from a minor journal read by a few scientific and medical experts to the world's largest encyclopedia on very nearly the world's most-visited website. (As an aside, there is probably a broader discussion that should take place among medical ethicists and OA journal publishers and editors about what sort of consents should be required in these situations, what types of images should be freely-licensed, and what level of protection of privacy and identity is appropriate.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with TenOfAllTrades, I think it important not to cross a certain ethical line (though legal)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I would agree it sums up my reasons for cropping out her head. There are of course other ways of deidenifying her as well, such as blurring her face etc. If we are unwilling to use any such method I imagine an organization such as marfan.org would be willing to donate an image. That way we would have one where we know the individual is aware of the implications. (P.S. The co-morbidities are excellent examples of co-morbidities associated with Marfans – apart from the ones that affect the shape of her head). -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 16:43, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

CC-BY is about copyright. It is not a model release. We need both. It sounds like you could get a copy of the model release (and therefore find out what its limitations are) by contacting the journal's editor.

I would rather have an image donated expressly for the purpose by an organization. This one does not feel typical to me in any respect. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

If we got expressed content from the parents to use the image would that be okay? Many people are interested in helping other people who may have their condition. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:29, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

It's not immediately obvious to me the benefit that would accrue – to Wikipedia, to Wikipedia's readers, to the patient, to her family, or to other individuals with Marfan syndrome – from (re)publishing a version of the image that makes the patient clearly identifiable versus using a cropped – or otherwise anonymized – image.

As a second, distinct, and less important point that doesn't touch on any ethical questions, I gather from the remarks above that craniostenosis is a rare and atypical comorbidity; we (and our readers) could arguably be better served if we omit that feature. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:01, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

A little late to the table here but I too am uncomfortable with this image, of a child dressed only in her underpants, used to illustrate the disease. I do not think this treats the girl with the dignity she deserves, nor do I think such an image treats sufferers of the disease with the dignity they deserve. We may be legally in the clear but as WhatamIdoing states this image does not feel typical in any way, and I hope we do not use many images of this ilk in our articles. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:46, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Acidic mouth

I have nominated the above article for deletion. The discussion can be found here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acidic mouth. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 18:06, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

The Hum

I have been disturbed for some time by The Hum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), an article whose title is essentially OR, a synthesis from colloquial names for a phenomenon that has no consensus name; a UK government document described it as low frequency noise. There is some activist editing of the article. There is a false dichotomy presented between those who do and do not hear the noise - a red flag, since it's a subjective syndrome and likely to be self-reinforcing and prone to people's ideas of cause, which may in turn be drawn from echo chambers (as with autism as a purported vaccine injury).

I think it would be helpful if people with access to the literature could have a look over it - it may be that my understanding is out of date. I do get low frequency hum as well as tinnitus, so I have looked it up, but I don't have access to more than abstracts. Guy (Help!) 15:49, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

this[21] is what I found, though Google books goes no further text-wise, should I have time I will see if I might get access to it via work.--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:08, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Looking around a little bit I found Venous hum, another article in a similarly poor state. I found this review on Pulastile Tinnitus which covers it pretty well PMC 3719451 , I don't know if that would explain it? The ~2% that hear "the hum" could correspond to the "less than 10% of tinnitus sufferers that have pulsative tinnitus" (studies put tinnitus prevalence between 10-17%), which may be perceived as humming. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 11:28, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

This has been my problem with the article all along: the sources are so minimal that it';s not even possible to confirm what the actual subject is supposed to be. Guy (Help!) 11:18, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

was unable to get access to book mentioned--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:11, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Ishihara Color Blindness Test

Hello once more, medical experts. The draft article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ishihara Color Blindness Test was declined at AfC because there was already an article Ishihara Test. The reviewer recommended that the information be moved to the existing article, but the editor did not do this. I have moved a small amount of non-medical information myself, moved the draft to Ishihara Color Blindness Test and redirected it to Ishihara Test. There is a lot more information, some sourced, some not, in the history of the redirect at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ishihara_Color_Blindness_Test&oldid=643820314 . I am posting this here in the hopes that someone who understands the subject will read over the draft and move any appropriate material to the mainspace article, crediting the draft's original editor, "Miller ashley", in the edit summary. Thanks! —Anne Delong (talk) 03:03, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Anne, I moved the first reference with text (copied) and credited the editor to the history section (the other references weren't used)...thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:32, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Great!—Anne Delong (talk) 04:19, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Pronunciation

In an effort to simplify our first sentences of our articles I have moved pronunciation to the infobox. An example can be seen here at pneumonia and metoprolol. Discussion is here [22] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:26, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

give opinion(gave mine--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:02, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Planned Parenthood 2015 undercover videos controversy major issues

This article was going towards deletion, but it seems it is going to stay. For the past 72 hours a very limited number of editors have been reforming the article. I would suggest some here add it to their watchlist to make sure any additions follow reliably sourcing guidelines. Currently this topic is getting over 1500 views a day. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 10:33, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

will keep an eye on--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:02, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Edits lost behind bots

This edit [23] was live for over a month because Yobot fixed something right after the edit. This could potentially make it very easy to hide things behind bots by simply adding a {{cn}} tag after a controversial edit and waiting for a bot to cover up the tracks. Would it be possible to write a bot that could look out for these types of controversial edits on medical articles? It shouldn't be that hard to create a list of topics that need some extra scrutiny. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 14:40, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Basically this is a problem with how watchlists work. What ought to happen is that if you activate the "ignore bot edits" option, then your watchlist will show the most recent edit that was not a bot edit. What actually happens is that if the most recent edit was a bot edit and you don't have "show all edits, not just the most recent" activated, then you won't see the edit at all. Same story for minor edits. I have been complaining about this off and on for years -- maybe if other people would ask for a change too something might eventually happen. Looie496 (talk) 15:09, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

That is one dimension to it as well, but actually it is also possible to add several edits in a row, having secondary edits obscure more controversial ones - so I still believe a bot could be necessary. That said I definately take part of writing a letter to the developers about how the watchlist treats bot edits. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 15:28, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Looie. If we could at least get this partly fixed that would be a plus. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:41, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Have posted here [24]. Not sure who would fix it? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:06, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

MCOTM?

It's been awfully quiet over at transverse myelitis. Just mentioning it in case people forgot about it... TylerDurden8823 (talk) 20:40, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I finished the causes section,--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:44, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Testosterone replacement therapy in MMA

Sigh... Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Testosterone replacement therapy in MMA. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 18:45, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

give opinion(I did)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:49, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Crack cocaine could use some love

Considering the attention this substance has been given over the past 30ish years, the article is in quite bad shape. If you have some time please take a look. Sizeofint (talk) 20:44, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

references #1,9,10, and 13 are dated in regards to Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:12, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I just like the name of this section haha. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:14, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:Translation attribution

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

{{Translation attribution}} a WPMED template, has been nominated for deletion -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:34, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

please give the appropriate link, thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:35, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh, it isn't really relevant anymore, I moved it to my userpage. Closed discussion is at:Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_August_14#Template:Translation_attribution -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 22:58, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Combinatorially carcinogenic chemicals

The Environmental Working Group has published a report about cancer caused by combinations of chemicals.

Rethinking Carcinogens | EWG

—Wavelength (talk) 03:15, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

very interesting--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. These are enough to write a Combinatorially carcinogenic chemicals article, but I wonder where else we should include them. Probably a section at Carcinogenesis and Cancer is due. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 14:38, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

that would be a good idea (article(s))--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:03, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Which sources are reviews? QuackGuru (talk) 17:05, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

All of the following are reviews:

EWG's Halifax Project published reviews

Nahta R, Al-Mulla F, Al-Temaimi R, Amedei A, Andrade-Vieira R, Bay S, G Brown D, Calaf GM, Castellino RC, Cohen-Solal KA, Colacci A, Cruickshanks N, Dent P, Di Fiore R, Forte S, Goldberg GS, Hamid RA, Krishnan H, Laird DW, Lasfar A, Marignani PA, Memeo L, Mondello C, Naus CC, Ponce-Cusi R, Raju J, Roy D, Roy R, P Ryan E, Salem HK, Scovassi AI, Singh N, Vaccari M, Vento R, Vondráček J, Wade M, Woodrick J, Bisson WH (2015). "Mechanisms of environmental chemicals that enable the cancer hallmark of evasion of growth suppression". Carcinogenesis. 36 Suppl 1: S2–S18. doi:10.1093/carcin/bgv028. PMID 26106139. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |displayauthors= ignored (|display-authors= suggested) (help)
Carnero A, Blanco-Aparicio C, Kondoh H, Lleonart ME, Martinez-Leal JF, Mondello C, Ivana Scovassi A, Bisson WH, Amedei A, Roy R, Woodrick J, Colacci A, Vaccari M, Raju J, Al-Mulla F, Al-Temaimi R, Salem HK, Memeo L, Forte S, Singh N, Hamid RA, Ryan EP, Brown DG, Wise JP, Wise SS, Yasaei H (2015). "Disruptive chemicals, senescence and immortality". Carcinogenesis. 36 Suppl 1: S19–37. doi:10.1093/carcin/bgv029. PMID 26106138. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |displayauthors= ignored (|display-authors= suggested) (help)
Engström W, Darbre P, Eriksson S, Gulliver L, Hultman T, Karamouzis MV, Klaunig JE, Mehta R, Moorwood K, Sanderson T, Sone H, Vadgama P, Wagemaker G, Ward A, Singh N, Al-Mulla F, Al-Temaimi R, Amedei A, Colacci AM, Vaccari M, Mondello C, Scovassi AI, Raju J, Hamid RA, Memeo L, Forte S, Roy R, Woodrick J, Salem HK, Ryan E, Brown DG, Bisson WH (2015). "The potential for chemical mixtures from the environment to enable the cancer hallmark of sustained proliferative signalling". Carcinogenesis. 36 Suppl 1: S38–60. doi:10.1093/carcin/bgv030. PMID 26106143. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |displayauthors= ignored (|display-authors= suggested) (help)
Langie SA, Koppen G, Desaulniers D, Al-Mulla F, Al-Temaimi R, Amedei A, Azqueta A, Bisson WH, Brown D, Brunborg G, Charles AK, Chen T, Colacci A, Darroudi F, Forte S, Gonzalez L, Hamid RA, Knudsen LE, Leyns L, Lopez de Cerain Salsamendi A, Memeo L, Mondello C, Mothersill C, Olsen AK, Pavanello S, Raju J, Rojas E, Roy R, Ryan E, Ostrosky-Wegman P, Salem HK, Scovassi I, Singh N, Vaccari M, Van Schooten FJ, Valverde M, Woodrick J, Zhang L, van Larebeke N, Kirsch-Volders M, Collins AR (2015). "Causes of genome instability: the effect of low dose chemical exposures in modern society". Carcinogenesis. 36 Suppl 1: S61–88. doi:10.1093/carcin/bgv031. PMID 26106144. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |displayauthors= ignored (|display-authors= suggested) (help)
Narayanan KB, Ali M, Barclay BJ, Cheng Q, D'Abronzo L, Dornetshuber-Fleiss R, Ghosh PM, Gonzalez Guzman MJ, Lee TJ, Leung PS, Li L, Luanpitpong S, Ratovitski E, Rojanasakul Y, Romano MF, Romano S, Sinha RK, Yedjou C, Al-Mulla F, Al-Temaimi R, Amedei A, Brown DG, Ryan EP, Colacci A, Hamid RA, Mondello C, Raju J, Salem HK, Woodrick J, Scovassi I, Singh N, Vaccari M, Roy R, Forte S, Memeo L, Kim SY, Bisson WH, Lowe L, Park HH (2015). "Disruptive environmental chemicals and cellular mechanisms that confer resistance to cell death". Carcinogenesis. 36 Suppl 1: S89–S110. doi:10.1093/carcin/bgv032. PMID 26106145. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |displayauthors= ignored (|display-authors= suggested) (help)
Kravchenko J, Corsini E, Williams MA, Decker W, Manjili MH, Otsuki T, Singh N, Al-Mulla F, Al-Temaimi R, Amedei A, Colacci AM, Vaccari M, Mondello C, Scovassi AI, Raju J, Hamid RA, Memeo L, Forte S, Roy R, Woodrick J, Salem HK, Ryan EP, Brown DG, Bisson WH, Lowe L, Lyerly HK (2015). "Chemical compounds from anthropogenic environment and immune evasion mechanisms: potential interactions". Carcinogenesis. 36 Suppl 1: S111–27. doi:10.1093/carcin/bgv033. PMID 26002081. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |displayauthors= ignored (|display-authors= suggested) (help)
Ochieng J, Nangami GN, Ogunkua O, Miousse IR, Koturbash I, Odero-Marah V, McCawley L, Nangia-Makker P, Ahmed N, Luqmani Y, Chen Z, Papagerakis S, Wolf GT, Dong C, Zhou BP, Brown DG, Colacci A, Hamid RA, Mondello C, Raju J, Ryan EP, Woodrick J, Scovassi I, Singh N, Vaccari M, Roy R, Forte S, Memeo L, Salem HK, Amedei A, Al-Temaimi R, Al-Mulla F, Bisson WH, Eltom SE (2015). "The impact of low-dose carcinogens and environmental disruptors on tissue invasion and metastasis". Carcinogenesis. 36 Suppl 1: S128–59. doi:10.1093/carcin/bgv034. PMID 26106135. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |displayauthors= ignored (|display-authors= suggested) (help)
Casey SC, Vaccari M, Al-Mulla F, Al-Temaimi R, Amedei A, Barcellos-Hoff MH, Brown DG, Chapellier M, Christopher J, Curran C, Forte S, Hamid RA, Heneberg P, Koch DC, Krishnakumar PK, Laconi E, Maguer-Satta V, Marongiu F, Memeo L, Mondello C, Raju J, Roman J, Roy R, Ryan EP, Ryeom S, Salem HK, Scovassi AI, Singh N, Soucek L, Vermeulen L, Whitfield JR, Woodrick J, Colacci A, Bisson WH, Felsher DW (2015). "The effect of environmental chemicals on the tumor microenvironment". Carcinogenesis. 36 Suppl 1: S160–83. doi:10.1093/carcin/bgv035. PMID 26106136. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |displayauthors= ignored (|display-authors= suggested) (help)
Hu Z, Brooks SA, Dormoy V, Hsu CW, Hsu HY, Lin LT, Massfelder T, Rathmell WK, Xia M, Al-Mulla F, Al-Temaimi R, Amedei A, Brown DG, Prudhomme KR, Colacci A, Hamid RA, Mondello C, Raju J, Ryan EP, Woodrick J, Scovassi AI, Singh N, Vaccari M, Roy R, Forte S, Memeo L, Salem HK, Lowe L, Jensen L, Bisson WH, Kleinstreuer N (2015). "Assessing the carcinogenic potential of low-dose exposures to chemical mixtures in the environment: focus on the cancer hallmark of tumor angiogenesis". Carcinogenesis. 36 Suppl 1: S184–202. doi:10.1093/carcin/bgv036. PMID 26106137. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |displayauthors= ignored (|display-authors= suggested) (help)
Brooks Robey R, Weisz J, Kuemmerle N, Salzberg AC, Berg A, G Brown D, Kubik L, Palorini R, Al-Mulla F, Al-Temaimi R, Colacci A, Mondello C, Raju J, Woodrick J, Scovassi AI, Singh N, Vaccari M, Roy R, Forte S, Memeo L, Salem HK, Amedei A, Hamid RA, Williams GP, Lowe L, Meyer J, Martin FL, Bisson WH, Chiaradonna F, Ryan EP (2015). "Metabolic reprogramming and dysregulated metabolism: cause, consequence and/or enabler of environmental carcinogenesis?". Carcinogenesis. 36 Suppl 1: S203–31. doi:10.1093/carcin/bgv037. PMID 26106140. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |displayauthors= ignored (|display-authors= suggested) (help)
Thompson PA, Khatami M, Baglole CJ, Sun J, Harris S, Moon EY, Al-Mulla F, Al-Temaimi R, Brown D, Colacci A, Mondello C, Raju J, Ryan E, Woodrick J, Scovassi I, Singh N, Vaccari M, Roy R, Forte S, Memeo L, Salem HK, Amedei A, Hamid RA, Lowe L, Guarnieri T, Bisson WH (2015). "Environmental immune disruptors, inflammation and cancer risk". Carcinogenesis. 36 Suppl 1: S232–53. doi:10.1093/carcin/bgv038. PMID 26106141. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |displayauthors= ignored (|display-authors= suggested) (help)

Charlotte's_web_(cannabis)#Name sourcing?

Currently making a number of claims that might require better sourcing. I don't know if they can be classified as medical as they are anecdotal and mentioned as such. SandyGeorgia? -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 18:43, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

they do seem anecdotal--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:38, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey SandyGeorgia is back! Jytdog (talk) 21:53, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Excellent! Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Does every sentence need a visible citation

I have been adding citations to every sentence of the leads of our articles. When multiple sentence in a row are supported by the same sentence I occasionally hide some of them.

It appears that some of our readers want every sentence referenced and every reference visible per [25]. The bot than pots in to hide the tagging from one's watch list in the next edit.[26] Peoples thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I know you like sources in the lead so that it is quicker/better for people wanting to rapidly drill down to the relevant sources, but in general WP:LEAD opposes the use of references in the lead unless something is controversial. I struggle with people who tag the lead for CN and don't bother reading the body to see if the content has clear support there. In this case, they should have removed "blood tests" from the discussion of diagnosis in the lead, since blood tests are not part of the diagnosis of alcholism, but rather for recent alcohol use. I just fixed that.Jytdog (talk) 15:17, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree (unless [27] in reference to [28])--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:24, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

My thought about the stated problem is: you should go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-watchlist and remove the checkmark from any option that says to hide edits from you (except maybe hiding your own).

My thought about the situation at the article is: That editor has more than 7,000 edits, and therefore could reasonably be expected to answer a question left on the user talk page. Start there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:LEAD does not "oppose the use of references in the lead". It simply does not require them.

I have added the content in question to the body of the article. Much more could be said about screening tests for ETOH misuse. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:04, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

A reader thinks the text is unsourced even though there was a hidden citation after the sentence. QuackGuru (talk) 20:08, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Yup agree with QG. Maybe we should show a ref after every sentence. Nearly everything is controversial to someone. And some people just like tagging anything without a ref. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:49, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

you will do it, i am sure. :) per WP:LEAD it isn't required and the specific dif you brought was actually a good use of the tag. i think the article is better now after that statement was called out with the tag... above i wrote that i assume that you want all the key sources in the lead, so that they are more quickly accessible - so that the lead actually becomes a mini, fully sourced article. Is that where you are going? Jytdog (talk) 21:53, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes writing the leads as mini fully sourced articles for translation into other languages. Agree the article is better now that the material is discussed more fully in the body of the text. Yes I know that references in the lead are not required but they are also not prohibited. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

New Cochrane evidence

Hi all, I have updated the Wikipedia:Cochrane Collaboration/Cochrane UK/Cochrane Reviews project with the latest Cochrane evidence for leg cramps in pregnancy, effectiveness and safety of different surgical approaches to hysterectomy for women with benign gynaecological conditions and voxel-based morphometry to name a few.

The aim of the project is to highlight Cochrane reviews that we think the Wiki community should know about. HMill88 (talk) 09:24, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

good information (some are missing suggested article)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:30, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Cardiomyopathy

having some trouble finding good sources for this important article, (any help is appreciated,) thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:51, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Robbins Pathology, Harrisons Internal medicine or a cardiology textbook will probably be enough to start. Mail me if you need any help finding one. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 15:43, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

will use Robbins pathology [29] CFCF thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:43, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Opinion - AfC

Do you reckon Draft:ECG artifact should be merged with ECG? FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 17:01, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

There isn't much to it, and accordingly a separate article seems unnecessary. If the sourcing is legit, I'd say merge, after correcting the grammar. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:07, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

agree--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:46, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Yup merge. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:42, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

It's an important subject all right, and if it was expanded a couple of paragraphs it could be an independent article. Unfortunately the sources aren't up to snuff apart from the first one PMID 17056954 and last one – which I believe should point to PMID 17322457. (They are a little dated, but generally very good) Those sentences could be merged to Electrocardiography#Artifacts. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 21:43, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I think I botched it, but I'm too tired, fixing tomorrow. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 21:52, 18 August 2015 (UTC)