Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 25 August 2024 [1].

Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome

[edit]
Nominator(s): —Femke 🐦 (talk) 10:47, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ten years ago, geneticist Ron Davis called ME/CFS "probably the last major disease that we don't know anything about". A lot has changed since, most notably a global pandemic that led to millions more contracting the illness (15% to 50% of those with long COVID) and the start of research programmes in many countries. A lot still remains to be discovered. ME/CFS has a long and contested history, making it an interesting but difficult article to write. Comments most welcome :).

Many thanks to those helping with pre-FAC reviews, User:Ajpolino, User:Graham Beards, User:RoySmith and User:Draken Bowser, and those involved in the article over the years (User:Innisfree987, User:The Quirky Kitty and User:Ward20). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 10:47, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Link to peer review RoySmith (talk) 13:58, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Added and expanded. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 15:29, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draken Bowser

[edit]

Back from vacation and ready to review! I like what you did with the prevalence estimate, it seems to reflect the inherent uncertainties while remaining comprehensible.

Classification looks good to me.

Signs and symptoms

Severity

  • and 19% have a full-time job - I'm concerned about this for the same reason as the old prevalence estimate.
    The source cited does not have a range. It's based on the broader Fukuda criteria, so may be an overestimate compared to modern criteria. I have found one other source on the topic in an MDPI journal by an independent researcher. The numbers found there are similar (typically 10-30% based on older criteria, one study with the strict but uncommonly used ICC criteria found <10%). I'm not sure the mpdi journal meets the criteria for HQRS, so I'm hesitant to cite it to give a wider range. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:08, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My concern here is that while it's presented as 19% in the source, we're making a very specific general statement about ME/CFS based on a questionnaire answered by a hundred individuals. /DB
    I've changed the percentages to a more vague "one in five". Is that sufficient? Or you still think it's too specific / outdated? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:23, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Causes

  • but there is not a single gene responsible for increased risk. - is this trying to say that it is likely polygenic or that no candidate genes have been reliably identified?
    The first. There have been GWASes of like ~2000 people, which didn't find anything. Expanded. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:08, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No suggestions on Pathophysiology or Diagnosis. Time for a break. Draken Bowser (talk) 21:08, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Management

  • The goal of the exercise programme borderline case, but the preceding sentence hasn't established anything resembling a structured exercise programme, slight rephrase?
  • the --> a.
  • but there may be a trade-off required rest during the day. I think I get what this means, but could it be spelled out?
    I've tweaked the wording to "trade-off with needed rest", which should hopefully be clearer. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:23, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prognosis

  • In extreme cases, people can die from the illness. I think we need a little more info here.
    While I would love to write more, there is not much more on this in HQRS. I've written more on trying to expand this at in a recent talk discussion. Did another search, but sources on the topic are either news articles about individuals who've died, primary, implicit, or published in lower-quality journals. Had another search, but no success. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:23, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Epidemiology

  • Overall, around 1 in 150 have ME/CFS. Haven't changed with the rewrite of the lead, on the other hand the figure is presented in context here, which might be fine.

History

Time for another break. Draken Bowser (talk) 16:55, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ajpolino

[edit]

Glad to see this here at last, and looking forward to reviewing in the next few days. Feel free to bother me if I'm not back by midweek. Ajpolino (talk) 23:58, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just getting started, but need to step away for a moment. Enjoying the article so far. Some little things:

  • Lead - I am uninspired by the first sentence. I assume you wanted to keep it short and sweet, rather than merging it with the second sentence? Anything else we can say here? The word "serious" seems unnecessary since you show us it's serious with your description in the following sentences.
  • Lead - Similar note for "They are able to do much less than before they became ill." Seems generic; is that not true for many diseases? I think it could be cut, as it's implied much more colorfully by the rest of the paragraph.
    Done (might get pushback on talk for this). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:08, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Self-reverted, as I got pushback. It's a key part of many of the diagnostic criteria: one of the three mandatory criteria in the IOM for instance. The other symptoms may not be sufficiently severe to be this disabling. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:06, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't it redundant now that the lead sentence changed to include "disabling" (Sorry for butting in). Draken Bowser (talk) 07:37, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And removed it again, as I think there is a rough consensus to do so now. I agree it's now even more redundant with other parts of the lead. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:08, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead - "less than a day to several months." momentarily confusing as it reads like "less than" could also be applied to "several months" (which I suppose it can be). Is "hours to several months" acceptable?
    That was my initial wording. It felt a bit too vague to me, and a big jump from hours to months. I've now put in hours or days to severals months to emphasize the more typical crash duration (which is >14hours as I understand). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:08, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead - "avoid flare-ups and counseling..." I've never had the strongest grasp of English grammar, but Sammi Brie has instructed me that a comma belongs here (her essay on the topic in case it's helpful). Ditto "healthcare settings and care is complicated".
    Done. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:08, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead - "severely affected and unable to leave their bed or home" seems redundant? Sentence means the same with "severely affected and" cut out.
    That was my failed attempt to introduce a part of the severity classification. That classification is a bit unintuitive anyway, so better to not mention in lead. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:08, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Classification - "classified under other disorders of the nervous system". I don't feel strongly about this, but "other" is not very meaningful unless you look at the ICD-11 to see what it's "other" relative to. Would it be more meaningful to the reader to skip a level and just say "classified under diseases of the nervous system"?
    Done (the first sentence already said neurological). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:08, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Classification - "The cause of the illness is unknown and the classification is based on symptoms which indicate a central role of the nervous system." (1) another spot for the Sammi Brie comma. (2) I had to read this twice to understand. I'd suggest cutting the first clause (we know the cause is unknown because you told us four paragraphs earlier) and maybe tweaking to something like "ME/CFS is classified as a neurological disease as many of its symptoms indicate a central role of the nervous system."
    Done. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:48, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Classification - "may better fit" reads as editorializing (I know it's the source's wording, but it's a short "Perspective" piece from an immunologist. A perspective piece is a good place for her to editorialize; the wording fits less well in an encyclopedia article). Is it fair to replace with "is sometimes labelled a neuroimmune condition"?
    Done. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:08, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Signs & symptoms - "The illness..." I assume you're trying to limit the number of sentences starting with "ME/CFS..." but since the prior paragraph described several illnesses, I think this is a time to specify the subject of your sentence clearly.
    Done. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:08, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Signs & symptoms - "may be considered outdated" reads as editorializing. Is there a way to rephrase this so it doesn't sound like it's Wikipedia's opinion? Did the new term pick up any steam outside the NICE report?
    PEM is definitely the more used term still. That said, it is used in some prominent publications, for instance this week's lovely long COVID review in Lancet. I've moved the discussion about the best term to the subarticle, where I have the space to do proper in-text attribution. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:00, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Signs & symptoms - " can lead on to a" is how I think it would be said here (US). Is this a regional English thing? If so, ignore me, of course.
    Done. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:00, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Signs & symptoms - My general opinion is that dividing a section into a series of (mostly) single-paragraph subsections makes for an uncomfortable, choppy read. We don't need a bold title for every paragraph. I'd suggest lumping some subsections together -- maybe one on "core symptoms" (which could even go unlabelled as the top material of Signs & symptoms) and one on "Other common symptoms", as you have now.
    Done, even though there is not full consensus on core vs non-core symptoms across definitions. I've used IOM here, which is probably the most authorative. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:00, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Signs & symptoms - "in muscles (as myalgia) and joints" should this just say "muscles (myalgia) and joints"? I.e. is myalgia a type of muscle pain, or just the word for muscle pain? Also I don't insist you add "... joints (arthralgia)" but my brain cries out for symmetry.
    Removed "as", and linked arthralgia. Despite the annoying asymmetry, I prefer to omit arthralgia as jargon. Myalgia is useful to introduce as it helped explain the name of the illness. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:00, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Illness severity - "than healthy controls" - consider wikilinking "healthy controls" or "controls" as it's scientific jargon.
    There was no good link, so I changed it to healthy individuals. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:00, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pathophysiology - "in work rate at the anaerobic threshold" any chance there's a clearer way to communicate this? I imagine this won't be meaningful to most readers.
    I can't think of any. I would love to omit it altogether and just talk about performance, but the reduction in work rate more generally didn't reach the significance threshold in the last two reviews. I assume the next review will, as the biggest primary study so far confirmed these findings more generally last month. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:00, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Diagnosis - "... in obtaining a diagnosis and diagnoses may be missed altogether" Sammi Brie comma
    Done. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:00, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Diagnosis - "These include the NICE guidelines, IOM criteria... and CDC criteria." some abbreviations/acronyms get spelled out; others do not. I'm not sure I'd prefer they all be spelled out (since that's a lot of words that readers may not care about) but figured I'd flag the inconsistency for you to consider.
    I've now spelled out IOM at first mention, as I don't think it's a household name. CDC and NICE are both more known by their abbreviation I believe. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:00, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Diagnosis - "missing more diagnoses and overdiagnosis" this could be read as if "missing more" applies to both. If you flip the order or reword another way it gets clearer.
    Done. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:00, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Diagnosis - I think I said this at talk, but your table "ME/CFS symptoms... diagnostic criteria" is fantastic.
    Thanks :).
  • Diagnosis - "the Fukuda criteria have limitations" reads as editorializing. Would it suffice to say "While used frequently, the large variety of optional symptoms..."?
    This is wording found in sourcing too, for instance from BMJ: "A limitation of the CDC criteria is that PEM is not a requirement for diagnosis. Another limitation is symptom scoring, as the original criteria allowed symptoms to be 'present' without grading for severity. A stricter interpretation requires moderate or severe complaints for diagnosis." I want to convey specifically that missing PEM as a mandatory symptom puts Fukuda out of step with modern definitions. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:52, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Diagnosis - "In addition to PEM and sleep problems..." is it worth stating in the text that fatigue and functional impairment are required symptoms for the CCC (based on the table)?
    I've added fatigue. Becomes a bit too wordy if you include functional impairment imo. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:24, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Diagnosis - "Similarly, the International Consensus Criteria are stricter than the Fukuda criteria and select more severely ill people" is all we get on the ICC. Is anything else due or is this really a disfavored criteria set?
    I've expanded a bit. ICC is somewhat disfavoured as it defined ME rather than ME/CFS. It was influential in the sense that the illness severity categorisation was first defined there, so I've expanded slightly. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:24, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Diagnosis - "red blood cell sedimentation rate (ESR)" do we need to know the abbreviation (ESR)? It isn't used again in the article.
    Please forgive me for poking my nose in. I think we do. The term ESR is used so often, at least in the UK, that its full name is not known. Graham Beards (talk) 20:42, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll keep it as is, per Graham's comment. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:24, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Diagnosis - "Standard tests... thyroid-stimulating hormone." the first two list items are "standard tests" (as promised), the last three are things measured by tests. Is it possible to gently reword so the sentence makes more sense? Maybe something like "Standard tests include an HIV test and blood tests to determine full blood count, ESR, and levels of..."
    Done, and changed away from the superior West Country pronounciation of the H (haitch) in HIV. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:24, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Diagnosis - " present similar symptoms... [paragraph break]...Various rheumatological" It's not clear why these two paragraphs are separate. Is there a contrast between these two example groups you're trying to highlight?
    Merged. Only reason to split was to avoid a jargon-filled word salad paragraph; no content reasons. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:23, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Management - "cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT)" the abbreviation is used a few paragraphs before it's defined.
    Done. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:23, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Management - "flexible, prevent..." is a word missing here? A well-placed "and" or change to "preventing" would work I think.
    Done. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:23, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

:Pardon my slowness. Will continue to be slow through this week, as we have family arriving this evening. Hoping to be through everything by the end of the weekend. Ajpolino (talk) 16:41, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The rest looks great to me! Thanks for the interesting read. Will take another readthrough, then move on to a source review if no one beats me to it. Ajpolino (talk) 20:13, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Took another top-to-bottom read. Happy to support this article as an FA based on its prose, conformity with style guidelines, and length (i.e. 1a, 2, and 4. Femke, it's a pleasure to see your hard work to overhaul this article. This is probably the most challenging med topic I've seen brought to FAC since I started editing. Ajpolino (talk) 19:56, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Working my way through the reference list. So far the article is based on recent scholarly reviews and resource pages from major healthcare organizations. A couple questions on source I'm unfamiliar with:

  • Can you say something about how we know the IQWiG source is reliable? You may assume for the moment that I don't speak German and am shamefully ignorant of German health authorities.
    They're basically Germany's NICE. It's the most recent national clinical guideline on ME/CFS produced from a major country, hence my strong reliance on it. It goes in more detail than the 2021 NICE report. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:17, 8 August 2024 (UTC), 00:02, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • O'Leary 2020 is a satisfying read, but as a letter from one philosopher/ethicist sharply dismantling the thesis of Sharpe (one of the PACE trial authors) and Greco (another philosopher) I don't think it's an ideal source for broad claims like "People with ME/CFS often face stigma in healthcare settings" (lead) and I hesitate with it as a source for "a subset of professionals still see the condition as... 'illness-without-disease'" (O'Leary gestures at this, but she's mostly prodding directly at Sharpe and Greco, of whom I assume only Sharpe sees patients). The third place it's used, "Professionals who subscribed to the psychological model had frequent conflicts with patients...", is most defensible. Though I can't help but feel this topic is probably covered in a more authoritative source that set out to review the topic, rather than this one which set out to make a particular point.
    I take your point that a disagreement between a retired researcher and two philosophers isn't the best. I've replaced the first instance of this with a scoping review. The second instance is more difficult to replace. A few sources, for instance Mayo, "In the past, ..., describe this as a historical view, which is not quite correct. BMJ only talks about the controversy in terms of treatment, not of etiology. I've found quite a few papers that argue strongly against (and one in favour) of this psychosocial model that explicitly say some professionals still hold these views. I've added one as a double cite to the psychosomatic sentence. I hope I can replace these cites with this paper once it's published (2023 preprint). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:21, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aoun Sebaiti, et al. 2022 (used to reference a single statement) is published in Scientific Reports, which is a mega journal. Not inherently a problem, but academics typically publish in mega journals when more selective/prestigious journals won't accept their work. At a glance, I'm not sure why this review was sent to Scientific Reports, but I'd suggest you double-check that the material you cite to it reliably represents the scientific mainstream, and consider replacing if possible.
    It not possible to replace it with something similar, as this is the only meta-analysis of its kind. It's cited, including by in higher-quality journals, and the corresponding author is a well-cited researcher in the field of neuromuscular diseases. I think it adds to the section as it shows objective markers of the symptom. Happy to be convinced otherwise however. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:52, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ditto Maksoud, et al. 2020, which is in PLoS ONE.
    I'm confident of this article. Sonya Marshall-Gradisnik is a well-known expert in the field, also behind a Science article on the disease and co-author of the BMJ Best Practice document. Furthermore, none of what we cite to the paper is controversial. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:52, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similarly, there are a few citations to articles in MDPI journals. Again, not inherently bad, but since MDPI has a poor reputation you see more work there that's of poorer quality or from a field's fringe, since it's often a destination for work that isn't accepted in more mainstream/selective journals. Consider double checking these:
  • Ditto the Frontiers journal, though I haven't personally noticed the same quality issues with these, and my opinion of the vibe in academic science (for whatever that's worth) is that Frontiers is not disfavored to the same extent as MDPI. Here it's Pollack, et al. 2023 and VanElzakker, et al. 2018
    Both these sources are cited significantly for papers in the field. The recent CDC website update seems to have used the conclusions from Pollack, and it was mentioned frequently in the NIH research roadmap conference. The VanElzakker paper is on the old side, but the paragraph is mostly based on the newer source. The VanElzakker paper allows us to put in into context a bit more, that is, noting that PET evidence is the more direct type of evidence. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 00:02, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overall, there is less sourcing than you'd expect for a major illness, hence my occasional reliance on MPDI/Frontiers. There is a trade-off between comprehensiveness and where to draw the line on HQRS. Learned a new thing about mega journals though; I was not aware Plos ONE was in the same boat as Scientific Reports'. Will have another look at the sources that I'm not 100% on.

Taking this space to pick a few nits. Apologies in advance.

  • Per WP:MEDDATE, we try to source medical information to a source within the last 5 years, to ensure we're representing the (ever-evolving) medical mainstream. Many exceptions apply, of course. I'll try to limit my MEDDATE nit picks to the most relevant:

Still working my way through the list. Possibly more to come. Ajpolino (talk) 21:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC) Mostly done! Will take another look through everything shortly and add any final comments. Ajpolino (talk) 20:04, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All responses and changes seem reasonable. I think this passes the source review. It's well-referenced to recent, high-quality scientific literature. Ajpolino (talk) 20:06, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sgubaldo

[edit]

Putting my name down; should be able to look at it properly within the next couple days. Sgubaldo (talk) 10:13, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
I was initially going to comment on the first sentence, but I see that it's been changed and I'm satisfied with its current state.

Classification

  • "Alternatively, based on abnormalities in immune cells, ME/CFS is..." – Are these abnormalities also a symptom due to ME/CFS? I presume so from the lead, but it's not clear to me here.
    No, they are not a symptom, and it's not yet completely clear how cellular abnormalities translate to specific symptoms. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Signs and Symptoms

Illness Severity

Causes

  • "...there is not a single gene responsible for increased risk" – This makes it sound like there's no genes responsible at all, I think it should be 'there is no single gene...'
    Done. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...probably individually have small effects, but..." ==> "...probably have small individual effects, but..."
    Done. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and environmental exposures such as mould." – Not sure how you'd change it, but this reads like mould itself is an exposure, rather than talking about 'exposure to mould'. Also, wikilink mould?
    I've changed it to "environmental exposures such as to mould. Is that better?
    Yes. Sgubaldo (talk) 15:04, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Research

  • "People with ME/CFS can widely differ in which symptoms they have and how severe these symptoms are." seems convoluted; perhaps change to "Symptoms and their severity can widely differ among people with ME/CFS"
    Done. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Diagnosis

  • "Could You Have ME/CFS? from US Centers for Disease Control" ==> "Could You Have ME/CFS? handout from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the United States" or, alternatively, "Could You Have ME/CFS? handout from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention"
    Done. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The broad Fukuda criteria have a higher risk over overdiagnosis," ==> "The broad Fukuda criteria have a higher risk of overdiagnosis,"
    Done. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... whereas the strict ICC criteria have a higher risk of missing people" ==> Remove 'criteria', since it repeats second C in ICC?
    Sources use both. I find it easier to understand with the criteria doubled, as abbreviations are tough for people unfamiliar with the topic. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Similarly to the CCC criteria, ICC is stricter than the Fukuda criteria and select more severely ill people." ==> "Similarly to the CCC, the ICC are stricter than the Fukuda criteria and select more severely ill people." per the issue above?
    See above. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Management

Prognosis

Epidemiology

  • "Overall, around 1 in 150 have ME/CFS." ==> "Overall, around 1 in 150 people have ME/CFS."?
    Done. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Based on the 1994 CDC diagnostic criteria, the global prevalence rate for CFS is 0.89%. In comparison, estimates using the stricter 1988 CDC criteria or the 2003 Canadian Consensus Criteria for ME produced a prevalence rate of only 0.17%" ==> Silly question, but why are these sentences referring to just CFS or ME instead of the full name?
    Not a silly question at all. The second one should have been ME/CFS, which is changed now. The term CFS is more associated with old vaguer and broader definitions of ME/CFS (which have higher prevalence), whereas ME is associated with quite strict definitions. Fukuda used the term CFS, and CCC used ME/CFS, so I'm sticking to that. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History

  • Is there any information on when the umbrella term ME/CFS started being widely used that could be added here?
    I think that would be undue? We already talk quite a bit about the term. It's also so recent that I don't know if there is a source talking about it. The most recent source on the topic, published last year, had data up to 2019, when CFS was still dominant, at least in Google Trends. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, and you're right that the term is already mentioned. Sgubaldo (talk) 18:02, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

General

  • There's a source with <ref name=":0">, which should be changed per WP:NAMEDREFS
    Changed (also submitted it to the Wishlist a few weeks back, as a perennial VE annoyance).

Final comments above, apologies for taking a while. Sgubaldo (talk) 15:04, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. An impressive eye for detail :). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Possibly the most challenging disease to write well about, but the article is comprehensive, readable and worthy of FA status. Sgubaldo (talk) 18:00, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jens

[edit]
  • I think that the section "Naming" might be better combined with the "Classification" section, right at the start of the article. I suggest this because I was very confused about the name "Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome", which seem to be two alternative names put together, which is quite non-standard and needs explanation at the beginning of the article. Also, most readers will have no idea what the title (i.e., words such as "myalgic") actually means until they reach the end of the article, where it is mentioned en-passant. I think we first need to define the topic before discussing anything else, and some understanding what the article title is trying to say is crucial.
    Done. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was initially considered a subset of chronic fatigue syndrome – Take this as example: Here, for the first time, you use "chronic fatigue syndrome" without the addition "myalgic encephalomyelitis", and the reader will not know if this now refers to a distinct condition or not.
    I've merged the two sections. I hope this makes it clearer. Some context is missing still from the diagnostic criteria/history (CFS is sometimes used to denote that old criteria are used), but the section is now quite meaty, so I hope it's clear without further expanding. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Great! One more point about the part Some people with post-acute infection syndrome (PAIS) meet the criteria of ME/CFS. PAISs such as long COVID and post-treatment Lyme disease syndrome share many symptoms with ME/CFS and are suspected to have a similar cause: maybe some context is missing but I'm unsure what to make of this information. The paragraph starts with the classification of ME/CFS as a neurological desease, and it does not become clear how these two sentences relate to that. PAIS does not seem to have anything to do with neurology, so what does this mean regarding the classification of ME/CFS? Does this mean that some people do not consider ME/CFS to be a neurological desease? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:52, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've reworded to make clear that PAIS/infection-associated chronic illness is another potential classification, based on the new CDC pages. I don't know if there is any official classification of PAISs, but they also have strong neuroimmune symptoms. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:45, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also think that the structure of the "Classification" section is not ideal. For example, "post-viral fatigue syndrome" and "post-infectious fatigue syndrome" are discussed in separate paragraphs, although they seem to be synonyms (?).
    Yes, they are roughly synonyms (post-infectious fatigue syndrome can also follow bacterial infections). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The rest of the article seems to have only a few issues. My nitpicks as follows:
  • "verbal memory" – what does this mean, can it be linked? It does not seem to refer to forgetting of words, as this symptom was already mentioned earlier.
    Linked and expanded the linked article. Verbal memory refers more to storing and retrieving new verbal information. A verbal memory test could for instance require you to remember a phone number and recall it a few minutes later. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:46, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • autoimmune should be linked.
    Done. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:46, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A waiting period before ME/CFS is confirmed, is used to exclude acute medical conditions or symptoms which may resolve within that time frame. – The comma seems wrong, maybe try "Before ME/CFS is confirmed, a waiting period is used to exclude …"
    Done. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:46, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sleep apnoea is may also co-occur with ME/CFS. – remove the "is"?
    Done. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:46, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • more to follow. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:54, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • For example, avoiding standing by using a shower chair. – This does not read like a complete sentence. Combine with the previous one?
    I've expanded instead, and gave a different example to avoid duplication later on. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 15:15, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, these studies have often been small – does "small" refer to the number of participants?
    Yes, clarified. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 15:15, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 2015, the Institute of Medicine produced a report with new diagnostic criteria – I guess there must me many "Institute of Medicine" in the world, so this is a bit unspecific (edit: I see that it is linked later, but should be linked at first mention).
    Linked at first mention, and specified in the US one, if there are more. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 15:15, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excellent, well readable article overall! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support on prose. Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:27, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

750h

[edit]

Will review. Note that I know nothing about this topic, so it will just be a prose review. (feel free to refuse my suggestions with justification) 750h+ 13:45, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

lead
classification and terminology
signs and symptoms
illness severity
causes
pathophysiology
diagnosis
management
  • However, it is important that patients with ME/CFS undertake activities that they can tolerate. ==> “However, patients with ME/CFS must undertake activities that they can tolerate.”
    must is too prescriptive.
  • be a next step. ==> “be the next step.”
    Done. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:26, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regular repositioning is important to keep their joints flexible, and prevent contractures and remove the comma
    Done. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:26, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
prognosis
epidemiology
history
society and culture
  • no problems here.
research
final comments

More excellent work from Femke, impressive of you to take on such an article. After my comments are addressed (feel free to refuse some with justification) i’d be happy to support. 750h+ 14:33, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. 750h+ 00:09, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Beards

[edit]

I am pleased to add my Support. I have one nit-pick. There 39 uses of "people with". Can we find a variation for those affected? Graham Beards (talk) 16:18, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did another go over the article, and have brought it down a bit again. No single paragraph has two "people withs" anymore. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:06, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Femke. Graham Beards (talk) 20:14, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments

[edit]
  • References: article titles should consistently be in title case, regardless of how they appear in their original.
    Is there some sort of script that can help me do this? Or can I argue that it's consistent to use the original title? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:01, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that this does the trick, although I have never tried it: User:ZKang123/TitleCaseConverter
Consistency. :-) Nice try, but no. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:29, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It didn't work on my main account, but I did manage to get the script working on my alt. So this is now fixed too :). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:12, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "About a quarter of individuals are unable to leave their bed or home." Perhaps 'suffers' or 'those affected' or similar instead of "individuals".
    Done. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:01, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe "Historical research funding for ME/CFS has been far below that of diseases with comparable impact." → 'Historically, research funding for ME/CFS has been far below that of other diseases with comparable impact.'?
    Done. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:01, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:37, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Myalgic_encephalomyelitis/chronic_fatigue_syndrome/archive1&oldid=1242281957"