Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lyme disease/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 20:59, 20 March 2007.

Lyme disease

Nom & Support - This article is nice and long with quite good images and formatting. Not only that, it has been rated as GA-Class and high-importance on the assessment scale, it has been listed as a good article, and has had a peer review. Also, none of its images are fair use (they're PD and GFDL), and it has cited alot of sources. I think this would make a great featured article. --AAA! ^(AAAA) 06:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Object very strongly: the article is enormous, 120KB, as I pointed out on the talk page immediately before this nom was made. Subarticles must be split out. I don't favor strict adherence to 32KB, but surely 50-60KB is not too much to ask. Everyking 08:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Enough has now been split out to take it down to half its former length, which is good enough for me. Everyking 10:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong object. Pls review medical guidelines at WP:MEDMOS. Far too much uncited text, references not completely formatted. Red links in See also with External jumps. Notables not referenced. External link farm. Listy. Incorrect use of dashes and hyphens (see WP:DASH) Prose is not compelling (and the lead contains the specifics of a reference, which should be in ref tags!) More work and another serious peer review is needed. Disagree that length is a problem; it has 32KB of readable prose, which is fine. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I spent more time in the article, and found numerous issues that still need attention throughout. Most of the comments below are samples only—fixing them alone will not suffice, as they are only examples.

I corrected the section headings per WP:MSH
Lyme diagnosis and treatment are highly controversial, so the article should be extensively cited. I added fact tags to a few sections only; the problems exist throughout.
I found weasle words and words to avoid—changed a few. Be careful that words (like whereas) don't convey POV.
The citation style used in the article makes it very difficult to edit—I can't understand why HTML comments surround every cite, but it makes it very hard to find and work on the text.
The lead is not a summary of the article (see WP:LEAD); I put a fact tag on a statement in the article that I couldn't find in the text.
I found problematic prose throughout, suggesting the need for an independent copyedit—examples: The cause of Lyme disease is a bacterial infection with a spirochete ... Lyme disease has many signs and symptoms, but skin signs, arthritis and/or various neurological symptoms are often present. (why but?) Lyme disease may be misdiagnosed as multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), or other (mainly autoimmune and neurological) diseases, which leaves the infection untreated and allows it to disperse and invade various organs and tissue. I also corrected a hanging reference in the lead, which again suggests the need for a thorough copyedit.
Choppy and confusing prose: More confounding is that patients may present with Lyme Disease and a related disease such as MS. This makes diagnosis exceptionally difficult. It should be noted that this kind of misdiagnosis is the exception rather than the rule as it is widely held that Lyme Disease is underdiagnosed and underreported ranging from factors of 10 to upwards of 40. (Ten to forty what ??)
Another example of prose issues: Hard-bodied (Ixodes) ticks are the primary Lyme disease vectors. In Europe, Ixodes ricinus, known commonly as the sheep tick, ... The first statement doesn't clarify it refers to US; we only realize that when hitting the second statement.
More on prose: The longer the duration of tick attachment, the greater the risk of disease transmission;[citation needed] typically, for the spirochaete to be transferred, the tick must be attached for a minimum of 12 hours, although, only the first part of this statement can be said to be strictly correct. What ???
Choppy prose, sentence order seems backward, sentences could be connected— There is at least one case report of transmission by a biting fly. Lyme spirochetes have been found in biting flies as well as mosquitos.
Another copyedit issue—There is no doubt that Lyme disease exists, and most clinicians agree on the treatment of early Lyme disease, there is considerable controversy as to the prevalence of the disease, the proper procedure for diagnosis and treatment of later stages, and the likelihood of a chronic, antibiotic-resistant Lyme infection.
There are many areas where the text is prescriptive rather than descriptive; for example, "should consult with a doctor" and "proper removal of ticks". This should be corrected throughout.
Symptoms dives straight in to "Like syphilis, ... " before describing the symptoms.
Dashes, hyphens not used correctly (see WP:DASH)
Considering the controversy surrounding Lyme treatment, the Treatment section is particularly lacking in comprehensiveness, and dives right in without defining the territory or the controversy. It also needs to be extensively cited (like the rest of the article). Found another copyedit issue when reading that section—In later stages, the bacteria disseminate throughout the body and may cross the blood-brain barrier, making the infection more difficult to treat. or late diagnosed

I did not read the entire article; these are issues I found in a couple of sections only. The entire article could benefit from thorough citing and review, an independent copyedit, followed by a thorough peer review before resubmitting to FAC. Asking for help at the WikiProject Medicine may be fruitful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please fix the broken cites in Lyme disease controversy.--Rmky87 15:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.