Talk:Osteitis fibrosa cystica/GA3

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Not going to start the review. Just going to say that before this could be a GA it needs pictures / xrays of the condition.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't exactly agree, though that decision is obviously not up to me. Doc, I absolutely understand and respect your position: that is, images detailing the disease itself would obviously be a fantastic addition to the article. However, I'm forced to respectfully disagree in feeling that it is a possible GA nomination with the exclusion of pictures. WP: Good article criteria states,"Illustrated, if possible, by images ." The article contains three images, though I'm considering removing the infobox image, as it really isn't pertinent, or should at least be placed in the "Causes" section. The point remains that x-rays or physical depictions of a disease such as OFC, which isn't exactly common, are difficult to find and even more difficult (as I have found) to obtain permission to use. Furthermore, the article has undergone 2 failed GA nominations, the first of which mentioned only a citation under an image; and the second, which did not mention them at all.

Given both these reviews and the somewhat ambiguous nature of the GA criteria, I'm forced to disagree, though it's ultimately up the reviewer. Strombollii (talk) 16:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The GA criteria explicitly states "The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement." Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

If one looks at the GA criteria it says images if possible. Wikipedia:What_is_a_good_article?#What_is_a_good_article.3F --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I will reiterate Strombollii's point (because I doubt any reviewer will invest enough time to search for pictures, even if they criticize them) - "The point remains that x-rays or physical depictions of a disease such as OFC, which isn't exactly common, are difficult to find and even more difficult (as I have found) to obtain permission to use." I will also have you know that the article I promoted to GA had a mere three images as well (albeit two were x-rays) - and my article is significantly further researched and studied. It is an understatement to say that Strombollii has spent hours upon hours sifting through hundreds of web pages and countless emails in hopes of obtaining an x-ray. I myself have watched him peruse search results, medical databases and organization web pages nearly every time we have "free time" during class (and have access to computer terminals). I cannot review this article, seeing as I am a peer, however I will say this article deserves a thorough review to do Strombollii's time and effort justice. Stick in there, pal, you've done excellent work so far. Food_Puma 21:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

This page has made great improvements. Images are available and are important for GA. Here is one from flicker http://www.flickr.com/photos/14309782@N04/1607941148 and another from an University

http://images.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://www.meddean.luc.edu/lumen/meded/mech/cases/case18/slide14.JPG&imgrefurl=http://www.meddean.luc.edu/lumen/meded/mech/cases/case18/list.htm&usg=__E3Xr7YGuQfuhfHkwDfxSFyHw54Y=&h=372&w=540&sz=44&hl=en&start=4&sig2=hcDyg8yW0DhRzu6hZdCVzQ&um=1&tbnid=2L9Ukne8M2DJ8M:&tbnh=91&tbnw=132&prev=/images%3Fq%3D%2522Osteitis%2Bfibrosa%2Bcystica%2522%2B.gov%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26hs%3DEGw%26sa%3DG%26um%3D1&ei=NRjNSc7qCo6qsAORk_DEBg

My points is that there are both x-rays, gross specimens, and histology images available. Just need to work to deal with the copy right. By the way it to me many 6 months to get my first article to GA. I went to the pharmacy and took pictures of drugs. I went and took pictures of CT images.

Another thing you could try is going to a university and looking thru old medical journals on which the copyright has expired. Cheers.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay. All published material is in the public domain if published before 1923. http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/public_domain/ von Recklinghausen published paper is both the 1800s and in 1910. So take a camera and go to the library and see what you can find.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay I have added images JUST to show that it can be done. They are from http://www.docstoc.com/ which contains lots of works in the public domain. The xrays however need labeling to indicate what part shows the defects and exactly what the defects are. I leave this to other edits. Cheers.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Any objections to moving the radiograph into the diseasebox? I'm trying to get ahold of the papers now.. living in rural North Carolina is prohibitive to research, unfortunatley. Thanks, Doc. Strombollii (talk) 21:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, which vonRecklinghausen paper are you talking about? WorldCAT only brings up one, archived in Cambridge and Berlin...and I honestly can't get a hold of it. Is there another that I'm just missing?Strombollii (talk) 22:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes feel free to move were you see fit.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments *You need to combine the Bibliography into the references.

Just out of curiosity, is this necessary, or a personal preference? I consulted with Axl before creating the Bibliography section, in order to be able to cite books from multiple pages within the reflist. Could you advise on how you'd prefer this done?

• Formatting of text is an issue. Under causes there are three 1s  Done
• The Pathology section needs to be change to pathophysiology and needs to be more indepth. No dicission of how renal problems cause this ( it works thru a fall in glomerular filtration rate (GFR) )  Done

:Sorry about the name: the previous GAR stated that "pathophysiology is too long a name, especially when pathology would serve the same purpose." I concur, however, with you assessment. Looking for sources on the actual renal causation ATM.  Done

• Problems with language "Over-activity of the parathyroid glands, or hyperparathyroidism, is the most common cause of the disease, although it can also be caused by kidney failure and as a result of parathyroid cancer." This seems to imply that OFC is caused independly of hyperpara with kidney failure and cancer. However the cancer and the kidney problems cause hyperparathyroidism.  Done
• Surplus parathyroid hormone is not very encyclopedic. Over production would be better. Done
• Would would not generally say "other OFC patients" OFC is a skeletal manifestation of hyperparathyroidism rather than a disease in and of itself. Done
• This article contains a number of minor wording issues. Done

I'll print it out and give it a solid copyedit over the next few days. Anything in particular that strikes you?

Just ran through it, changing what I could find that was awkward. Anything else you notice?

--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Did the Eberstein reference number 17. You use ref name. One useful thing to do is look at other GA / FA pages to get an idea of what should be done.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

So, I cite the book multiple times within the list? Do I differentiate page numbers? Strombollii (talk) 01:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh oh wait, I see. The mention of the page number occurs within the refname. There's no mention of the page number within the reflist though?Strombollii (talk) 01:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay did not realize the reason why you had separated the two. It will work the way it is.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Further To-do

• Expand Surgery section

• Expand Treatment section to entail the treatment of OFC caused by renal problems Done

Strombollii (talk) 04:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Is the citation banner at the top of the article still relevant. My review suggest otherwise. If there is an absence of an objection - I plan to remove it.--JimmyButler (talk) 18:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I certainly don't object. I'm just hesitant to remove it myself. Strombollii (talk) 03:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I still have some concerns with the treatment section. I am left with the question: is the treatment just that of underlining hyperparathroidism or are specific treatments needed for OFC. Would be good to divide the treatment section into medical management and surgical management.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

According to the literature I've read, it seems as though the only real treatment for OFC is the actual removal of the tumors. It's necessary to treat hyperparathyroidism so that the disease doesn't manifest again. Strombollii (talk) 15:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

OFC is not just brown tumors? It is also cysts and fibrosis.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

You're right. I misspoke (typed?). Re-structuring/reworking the section now. Should have it finished tonight. Thanks!Strombollii (talk) 19:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Alright...re-wrote treatment section so it is now shorter, but I feel addresses the topic at hand. Will continue adding information, but I feel like your concerns are met. Will probably address the arrows in the x-ray tonight after work. Anything else you see?Strombollii (talk) 13:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The x-ray at the top right of the article would benefit from a couple of arrows pointing to the OFC lesions. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC) Done

And maybe describe what the arrows are pointing too.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC) Done(and added third lesion)

Final GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose):Well written b (MoS (Med)): No important MoS ommissions

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): Well referenced b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): The sources are reliable

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): Yes b (focused): Remains focused

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias: Yes

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.: Yes

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations by the way to all who worked hard to improve this artcile.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Image of hands

I have asked the editors of Radiopedia if they would release this image of the hand and they generously have agreed to do so. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Strombollii (talk) 12:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank You

A big thank you to everyone who helped out with the article: Special thanks to FoodPuma, Axl, EyeSerene for their invaluable editing and copyediting assistance; and Doc James for an arduous, but duly thorough and, in the long run, absurdly helpful review. To FA! Strombollii (talk) 12:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• • One week of school to go! Good luck on the FA attempt;that would be a dramatic ending to an interesting journey.--JimmyButler (talk) 13:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

FAC Checklist

• The pathophysiology section could be more in depth and involve a diagram of the process.
• The section on epidemiology touches on the USA and Asia. Any data from the rest of the world?

Quite honestly, no. I've scoured as much of the literature as I can find, and other info is absent.

• In the history section it is mentioned that the rate has decreased in the western world with better treatment. What was the rate before and what has it decreased to?
• I have seen some gross anatomy images of these tumors as mentioned at the GA. People will often release images if you ask much like radiopedia did for the images of the hands.
• I saw at least one one-sentence section that should be expanded, and noted several MOS issues in edit summaries. I'm concerned that some physicians should look at this article for 1b, comprehensive, as several sections are short and stubby.
• Abnormalities affecting the parathyroid glands cause a surplus of PTH, which, in turn, increases the activity and frequency of such cells. -it is far from clear that "such cells" are osteoblasts and osteocytes.
• Increased PTH triggers the release of stored calcium through the dissolution of old bone, as well as the conservation of said serum calcium through a cessation in the production of new bone. - "as well as" and "of said serum calcium" - need attention, particularly the latter, I do not understand the need for "of said"
• Muscles in patients afflicted with OFC generally appear unaffected or "bulked up" instead of diminishing in mass. - why would they be expected to diminish in mass?

They wouldn't: I'm just prosaic for no reason.

• Often the article seems more about hyperparathyroidism than OFC. This is particularly noticable in the History and Epidemiology sections, but occurs throughout the article; If muscular symptoms appear upon the onset of hyperparathyroidism, they are generally sluggish contraction and relaxation of the muscles.
• What is deviation of the trachea?
• The section on blood testing is very poor; there is not enough detail. What do the results of the tests mean, how should they be interpreted, what are their normal ranges, when should they be performed, are they reliable? These should all be explained.
• There is a big difference between a sign and a symptom. The usage is wrong in the Radiology section, which again is not very good. X-rays may also be used to diagnose the disease - no they aid the diagnosis. Only humans diagnose.

• Furthermore, brown tumors, especially when manifested on facial bones, can be misdiagnosed as neoplastic. - this sentence is targeted at medics.

• skull x-rays may depict - skulls do not emit X-rays; we are writing for medics again.

• Cysts may be lined by osteoclasts and sometimes blood pigments, which lend to the notion of "brown tumors." - where have these "cysts" come from all of a sudden, this is the first time they are mentioned. What are they, where are they and they important?
• delivered intravenously - writing for medics again, delivered intravenously, with medications - what medications?

How is "delivered intravenously" writing for medics? It's a description of the way the medicine is delivered and completely relevant to the discussion. Should I use an acronym instead?

• is the recommended route of treatment - writing for medics.
• ''the lesion healed and the autonomous material blended rapidly and seamlessly with the original bone. - does "autonomous material" mean "the transplanted bone?
• The epidemiology section is about hyperparathyroidism and not OFC, as is the history section.
• The image at the top right has bizarrely shaped arrows. Perhaps a standard shape of arrow could be used?

• The "References" need to be standardized. Please include volume and issue numbers if appropriate. It is preferable to use journal titles in full. *The "Bibliography" section uses textbooks that only have a single page number referenced in the article. These books should use standard in-line citation.

I disagree with this, though I'm completely willing to change it. Shouldn't all books be listed under the bibliography, while all journals/websites be listed under references? For the sake of uniformity, I feel like that's the most appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Strombollii (talk • contribs) 04:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

From peer review:

• The images lack alt text, which they will need for FA. It's a good idea to add them in any case. Alt text describes the essence of images, maps, and charts to readers who can't see them. WP:ALT explains how to write alt text and where to put it, and you can look at recent examples of alt text via WP:FAC.
• The article has a relatively large number of extremely short sections. It might be worth considering merging, for example, the five subsections of "Diagnosis" under the single head, "Diagnosis" and eliminating the subheads. The FA article on Tourette Syndrome handles the "Diagnosis" section this way. Alternatively, perhaps some of the short sections could be expanded.
• Part of the licensing information for Image:Friedrich Daniel von Recklinghausen.jpg could be a problem. The source url is circular in that it links to the image itself rather than to a page at the host site with information that a fact-checker could use to verify that Bibliothèque Interuniversitaire de Médecine is indeed the source. The fact-checker(s) at FAC are likely to ask for a more illuminating url.

*The source url for Image:Illu thyroid parathyroid.jpg returns a "page not found" message. The url has probably moved within the site, and it would be good to track down the new url and to replace the old one.

• I believe X-ray takes a big X even in the middle of a sentence. I see several "x-ray"s in the "Radiology" and "Fine needle aspiration" sections.

Strombollii (talk) 14:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)