Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Obesity/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 not promoted by Karanacs 19:23, 14 April 2009 [1].

Obesity[edit]

Nominator(s): Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obesity is a very important topic. It currently is comprehensive, well referenced, and on par with many of the other medical article which are listed as feature. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article needs a fair amount of MoS work: see my edit summaries. I saw WP:DASH issues, WP:ACCESS, WP:MOSNUM on when to spell out numbers vs. digits (and sometimes 10, other times ten), WP:ITALICS problems, missing conversions, incorrect punctuation on sentence fragments in WP:MOS#Captions and missing accessdates. Also, pls discuss the section headings in relation to those recommended per WP:MEDMOS. Also, please review the use of the {{main}} template (some of them might better be Further information or See also, main is used when this article is a Summary of the other article.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Also, numbers like 1,234 need commas per WP:MOSNUM. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Adjusted {{main}} templates, think I fixed hyphens --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry about adding notations on my trivial MOS items, DocJames; I'll follow along and strike them all when you're all done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think most of the MOS cleanup is accomplished, except there are still main templates that might want to be See or Further, and we still need to understand the sections relative to those recommended at WP:MEDMOS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The main sections lead to an in depth summary of the section. For example childhood obesity, diet and obesity, obesity epidemiology. I created most of them as the obesity article became to big to carry on discussion. Which do you fell still need to be changed?--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - just a few from my first reading. In addition to Sandy's comments above, I felt that the article was written for a medical audience. Could we avoid "subjects" and "patients" where possible? I realise this can be difficult. I had to guess what "body composition is affected" means. Why the "absolute" in "absolute waist circumference"? The sentence explaining that kids do not run around, ride bicycles or take part in sports is a bit weird, from memory it reads "Physical activity in children in activities..." or something similar. What are "these commodities" - does this have another meaning that I don't know? We have "negative health consequences/outcomes" in a few places, is there a less pompous why of saying that being obese leads to ill health? Last, for now, "Flier summarizes.." but, unless I missed this, we are not told how. These are just a few things that I spotted during a first, rather rushed reading. Graham Colm Talk 18:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Graham. Fixed most of this. Not sure what one would change outcomes too though. The wording is to be politically correct. And not sure what your last sentence "we are not told how" refers too.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is just to acknowledge that I have read your reply, and that this page and the article are on my Watchlist. I will return here with a fuller review later. In the meanwhile, I see Ealdgyth has raised quite a few issues regarding the referencing :-) Graham. Graham Colm Talk 22:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some more comments:

  • The lead does not provide an adequate summary of the article.
  • Done hope this addresses the issue various diseases - is too vague for an FA
  • This is discussed in the text that follows and hopefully people will look at the section on Public health Here: - authorities view it as one of the most serious - begs the question who are these people?
  • Done Here: - Obesity, in absolute terms, is an increase of - similarly makes me think what are "absolute terms".
  • Done This phrase, in a practical setting - sounds like one medic's advice to another.
  • Done On a similar note is "clinical" needed here, the common clinical methods used to estimate obesity..
  • Done Here:- Obesity in children and adolescents is defined as a BMI greater than the 95th percentile. Clearly, we are talking about the top 5% - I think this could be more clearly written for those readers unfamiliar with the normal distribution.
  • Done Various - is rarely helpful or informative.
  • Done Neither is - a variety of....as well
  • Done Here:- Excess body fat is behind 64% of cases of diabetes in men.. - I think "underlying cause" would be better.
  • Done I state the subgroups in the next sentence Certain subgroups - is much too vague
  • Done I think The "individual vs societal level" - contrast could be better worded.
  • Done Here:- A 2006 review identifies ten other possible contributors - should be in the past tense, it was three years ago.
  • Done I see we still have "subjects" instead of people.

This is as far as I have got tonight. My initial reaction to this important article is to oppose the FAC, I will have a clearer opinion on this when I have finished studying it. Graham Colm Talk 18:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I am so sorry and I hate doing this, but the article is not ready for FA. The flow of the prose—often vague and disjointed—is poor and it lacks polish. The article looks and reads like Revision Notes on Obesity. Please don't shoot the messenger, particularly because this one knows how bloody hard it is to produce contributions to the FA standard. I think this nomination was premature. More opinions should have been sought from others beforehand. Now, there is a rush to fix things. I suggest withdrawing the nomination and bringing it back to FAC in a few weeks. Graham Colm Talk 20:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure were Citation has been used, and remember it is not just me :-) Used always cite--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.com/Abstract.asp?AID=4669&Abst=Abstract&UID= deadlinks
  • Done Current ref 13 (Gabriel I Uwaifo) needs a publisher done
  • DoneCurrent ref 19 (Healthy Weight) needs a last access date and publisher at the very least.
  • DoneCurrent ref 26 (Body-mass...) needs a publisher and a last access date at the least.
  • Done found other refsThe two refs to the Encyclopedia of Obesity, that have links to google books searches, you need to list the page numbers too.
  • DoneSame for the current ref 142 (Boss...)
  • DoneCurrent ref 61( POol) needs pages numbers
  • DonePlease spell out lesser known abbreviations in the footnotes such as USDA (current refs 69 and 70), WHO (current refs 84, 85), CBC (current ref 136), FDA (current ref 137), IOTF (current ref 156), CDC (current ref 170), OED (current ref 181), NAAFA (current ref 186), ISAA (current ref 187)
  • Done Current ref 82 (mdPassport) needs a publisher and it requires registration, that should be noted.
How does one show registration is required? --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Phagocyte has a couple of examples where free registration was required to access papers. Just stick some text after the template. Colin°Talk 14:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done Current ref 92 (www.commonsensemedia.org) needs a last access date, title, and author
  • DoneCurrent ref 93 (newsletter...) needs a publisher, author, and last access date at the least.
  • DoneCurrent ref 98 (Kolata...) needs page numbers
  • DoneCurrent ref 110 (www.who.int) needs a title
  • DoneCurrent ref 116 (Boulpaep...) needs page numbers
  • DoneCurrent ref 129 (Information Plus..) needs page numbers
  • DoneCurrent ref 135 (WIN - Publication) needs a publisher
  • DoneCurrent ref 153 (Behavoioral..) needs a publisher
  • DoneCurrent ref 155 (Janet D. Latner..) needs page numbers
  • DoneCurrent ref 156 (www.iotf.org) needs a title
  • DoneCurrent ref 161 (Tara McClair) needs a publisher. What makes this a reliable source?
  • DoneAre you referencing the login page for current ref 175???? That would be what the title implies.
  • DoneCurrent ref 179 (Carol Gerten-Jackson) needs a publisher. What makes this a reliable source?
  • DoneCurrent ref 180 (Online Etymology...) needs a publisher and title
  • DoneCurrent ref 184 (Critser..) needs page numbers
  • DoneCurrent refs 186 and 187 (What is NAAFA) and ISAA) don't need the html format notes, html format is presumed for websites
  • DoneCurrent ref 192 (Campos...) needs page numbers
  • DoneCurrent ref 193 (Gard..) needs page numbers
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you remove your strike throughs, generally at FAC the person who makes the comment/concern strikes through when they feel the issues is resolved. If you need to keep track, little dones after will work for me. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
Done*Fix the 1 disambiguation link found with the dab finder tool
  • The following refs (code pasted below) are duplicated and appear more than once in the ref section, using a ref name instead
Done*{{cite journal |author=Barness LA, Opitz JM, Gilbert-Barness E |title=Obesity: genetic, molecular, and environmental aspects |journal=Am. J. Med. Genet. A |volume=143A |issue=24 |pages=3016–34 |year=2007 |month=December |pmid=18000969 |doi=10.1002/ajmg.a.32035 |url=}}
Done*{{cite web |url=http://www.who.int/dietphysicalactivity/factsheet_inactivity/en/index.html |title=WHO | Physical Inactivity: A Global Public Health Problem |format= |work=[[World Health Organization]] |accessdate=February 22, 2009}}--Truco 14:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done I thinkSorry to be fussy, but as MoSNUM says, a space like this, consistently: > 50. Why is "less than" spelled out in a table? That's just where you'd want the symbol. Slashes should be unspaced, I think, unless there's a space within one or both items (same rule as for en dashes). Hyphen in "FCA-approved".
  • Done"Women who have abdominal obesity have"—avoid rep. "Women with abdominal obesity have".

Lots of good about this article, but some cleaning up is required.

  • BMI section. I've heard too many researchers cast doubt on the generalisability of BMI to like the angle. Yes, there's a disclaimer about body builders et al., but I think more needs to be said about the naysayers.

Tony (talk) 16:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have not come across this doubt in the medical literature. If it exists it should be dealt with on the BMI page. Do you have any references? Thanks--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The first two references have inadequate citations, as they are both large books and no pages numbers are given:
    • DoneThe first, WHO_TRS_894, is a 250+ page book, which is downloadable in six PDF parts here. Presumably all 7 cites come from the linked Part 1, which contains two chapters and 37 pages. I suggest you move this citation down to a common References section (see Phagocyte for an example) and change each of the seven cites to indicate the page number for the fact.
    • DoneThe second ref is a 230 page book and needs page numbers for each of the cites.
    • Are there any more like this?
I'm a bit concerned that such a short lead could be an adequate summary of such a long article, but haven't read more yet. Colin°Talk 18:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and I wonder why more of TRS 894 (the other chapters) wasn't used. It seems like an excellent source for this article. Colin°Talk 18:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because it is 9 years old I though one should use more recent sources.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you follow talk-page conventions when responding to a comment, rather than prefixing your reply in bold. Thanks. Colin°Talk 12:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • DoneThe Kopelman2005 source is a 500 page book. For that kind of book, where each chapter is like a review-paper by a variety of authors, compiled by an editor or editors, I suggest you follow the citation format recommended by the Uniform Requirements example "23. Chapter in a book". For example:
Done*Seidell JC. Epidemiology — definition and classification of obesity. In: Kopelman PG, Caterson ID, Dietz WH, editors. Clinical obesity in adults and children. 2nd ed. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers; 2005. p 3–11. ISBN 140-511672-2.
DoneI've formatted it by hand but you should be able to compose everything following the "In: " with the cite-book template.
DoneThe citation then is specific to the chapter (with chapter author, name and pages supplied) but not down to the individual page. I think that is acceptable for that sort of work, and should minimise the number of unique citations you need to format. Oh, and drop the Google Books link; it doesn't add anything that the ISBN link doesn't do better. Colin°Talk 12:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Google book link used to add something as one used be able to read parts of the books. Since used the above ref this has changed.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC) Okay found another e version --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The article needs a work-over to check for inaccuracies, appropriate sequencing of information and to copyedit the prose. Here are some comments from just the first section:
  • Done"Obesity is an increase of body adipose (fat tissue) mass. In a clinical setting this is difficult to determine directly and therefore, the common methods used to estimate obesity are by body mass index (BMI) and in terms of its distribution via the waist–hip ratio"
  • DoneThe definition of obesity here is inadequate, which is unacceptable coming so soon after a decent definition in the lead.
  • DoneIt isn't clear if "this" refers to the increase or the amount of fat.
  • DoneThe comma should come before the "and therefore", not after.
  • DoneObesity isn't "estimated", it is actually defined by these proxy-measurements of excess body fat. It is the body fat percentage that is being estimated.
  • DoneJust saying "body mass index" is just meaningless jargon at this point in the article. We need to briefly explain what it concerns, as the lead now does.
Rearranged the sections so that BMI is first
  • DoneThe "it" in "its distribution" actually refers to "obesity" but should refer to "body fat".
  • What does "in terms of" add here?
Not sure what you are getting at
  • I can't (yet) understand why the distribution of body fat affects the "estimate" of obesity. We need to explain first that abdominal fat is the least healthy and therefore (given our definition of obesity requires a risk to health) such fat leads to obesity more than fat elsewhere.
  • "The presence of obesity needs to be evaluated in the context of other risk factors such as medical conditions that could influence the risk of complications." I don't really understand what this is saying, or why it is relevant to the "classification" of obesity.
  • Before we even get going with "body fat percentage" we are given a method for estimating it from the BMI. Shouldn't we describe how it is actually measured first? And we can't really use BMI until it has been defined, which is the next section. I don't see how this formula helps this article. It comes very near the beginning and so is likely to put readers off. Only a statistician would love it. In the BMI section, we could say that "a formula combining BMI, age and gender can be used to estimate a person's body fat percentage to an accuracy of 4%".
  • The body fat percentage isn't "10% greater in women than in men". It is 10 percentage points higher in women than in men. The facts that women have a greater normal percentage of body fat, and that a person's percentage of body fat increases with age even if weight remains constant, are significant to the article and should be noted outside of discussions of mathematical formulae.
  • Done"Direct attempts to determine body fat percentage are difficult and often expensive". Why "often"? Are there some cheap methods?
I think this means direct measurements of body mass. Only direct way to determine fat is via autopsy.
  • Done"one of the most accurate methods of body fat calculation in which a person is weighted underwater." so there are other methods in which a person is weighted underwater that are less accurate? The sentence needs recast.
  • Done"hydrostatic weighing" isn't a direct method of determining body fat percentage. It measures body density and an be used to indirectly estimate the body fat percentage. Perhaps it is more accurate than other methods, but it isn't direct.
  • Done"It has, however, been limited evaluated in obese subjects." eh?
  • Done"Therefore the routine use of these tests are discouraged." why don't we just be upfront that these are inaccurate historical methods that are now discouraged, rather than tag this fact on the end? Two "therefore"s.
  • Done", but it can be difficult to scan the severely obese due to weight limits of the equipment and insufficient diameter of the CT or MRI scanner." This isn't a "difficulty" but an absolute restriction. Better to say ", however severely obese subjects may exceed the weight capacity of the equipment or the diameter of the scanner aperture."
We do occasionally use the veterinary equipment. They have MRIs for horses and other animals. Just harder to access.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Colin°Talk 22:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support - I found the article to be informative and comprehensive. I greatly respect Graham Colm but the version I read seemed to flow fine to me given that this article necessarily must jump around a bit to stay at a readable size (8000 words). But it can be improved in that regard (hence my weak support). --mav (talk) 18:54, 12 April 2009 (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/Obesity/archive1&oldid=1089083987"