Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dracunculiasis/archive1

Dracunculiasis

Dracunculiasis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

As of 9 May 2024, 20:48 (UTC), this page is active and open for discussion. An FAC coordinator will be responsible for closing the nomination.

• Featured article candidates/Dracunculiasis/archive1

Nominator(s): Ajpolino (talk) 20:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

My first trip to FAC (2020) was for Buruli ulcer, an infection characterized by a skin wound that is intriguingly painless. This one is much the same. Another wound disease. Though this time it burns like hell, and a meter-long worm crawls out of it. Many thanks to Colin, SandyGeorgia, and Draken Bowser for their feedback, which dramatically improved the article. Apologies for taking two years to get to it. Ajpolino (talk) 20:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Support from Draken Bowser

Reserving a spot. Draken Bowser (talk) 20:26, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

• Could we simplify: " Fifteen previously endemic countries have been certified to have eradicated dracunculiasis" - I know it's not exactly the same thing, but it's shorter and perhaps ok for the lead?
• "Treatment for dracunculiasis also includes regular wound care to avoid infection of the open ulcer while the worm is leaving." - Shorter, and wound care is relevant to open wounds, with or without the worm. Also, post-worm treatment is supported by the CDC-source.
• "As with humans, control efforts have focused on preventing infection by encouraging people in affected areas to bury fish entrails as well as to identify and tie up dogs and cats with emerging worms so that they cannot access drinking water sources until after the worms have emerged." - Add a comma or two.

I have no major concerns. Good work. Draken Bowser (talk) 15:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

All done. Thanks for taking the time to look it over! Ajpolino (talk) 19:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Comments by TompaDompa

Really burying the lede in your nomination statement about what could very well be the second human disease ever eradicated (or perhaps the third, after polio), I would say—that alone makes this a positively fascinating medical topic. I'll see if I find the time to do a full review, but for starters I really think Eradication of dracunculiasis should be linked in the WP:LEAD, and "disease of extreme poverty" should link to Diseases of poverty (both in the lead and the body). TompaDompa (talk) 20:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Done and done. Indeed, hopefully we'll soon be adding the WikiProject History tag to its talk page ;-) Ajpolino (talk) 20:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

HF

This is on my list to review later this week. Hog Farm _Talk 00:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

• Recommend unlinking the redlink to Parasites Without Borders in the sources unless you think Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parasites Without Borders erred
  • Unlinked.
• "Famous Greco-Roman and Arabic physicians also wrote of diseases consistent with dracunculiasis," - is famous necessary? Presumably obscure Greco-Roman and Arabic physicians also wrote about the disease or similar ones during their times
  • Trimmed.
• Link the Cyclops copepod in the body?
• So does the worm infect Cyclops specifically (as linking directly to Cyclops instead of the copepod article in general in the lead would imply) or a range of copepods, but most importantly Cyclops?
  • A broad range of copepods, but usually found in "cyclopoids" (Cyclops and several genera that look like it). Switching everything to just "copepods", as the distinction among the copepods is not much researched. I've read the article dozens of times and somehow didn't even notice that I'd called out "Cyclops" in particular.
• "dracunculiasis was considered an achievable eradication target since it was relatively uncommon" - this doesn't fit well with the diease being stated in the previous paragraph to
  • Reworded. It looks like I had cut some context from the source anyway. Hotez says "CDC suggested dracunculiasis as a potential new target for eradication because of its relatively low prevalence compared to that of other helminth infections such as hookworm infection and schistosomiasis. Additional reasons were the observations that guinea worm could be prevented by health education and straightforward behavioral changes, such as..."

I think that's all from me; excellent work here. Hog Farm _Talk 01:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to read it over! Ajpolino (talk) 02:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Supporting Hog Farm _Talk 13:07, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• Don't think the graph in the navbox is helpful - it's not legible at that size. If it stays it needs a more specific source. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Ah sorry, I'm not a navbox person and I'd never noticed it. Removed it from {{Eradication of infectious disease}}. If it comes back I can remove the navbox from the page. Ajpolino (talk) 10:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

UC

What a delightful topic -- saving a space. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:34, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Commenting here with the caveat that I have no medical expertise whatsoever, and am still not totally sure I can pronounce the article's name:

• guinea worm larvae: we've previously capitalised Guinea in Guinea worm, which makes sense, as it's the name of a country. However, if HQRS generally decapitalise, we should be consistent on that. In any case, here, as a compound modifier, we should also hyphenate: Guinea-worm larvae
  • Looks like most sources capitalize. Went through and uppercased throughout the article.
• A person becomes infected: it isn't always a person, is it?
  • It's not. Weirdly enough, a person becomes infected by drinking water. Dogs tend to become infected by eating fish or frogs. Why the difference? We don't really know. I'd prefer to keep the wording focused on the human disease first (the sentence "A person becomes infected..." is still true, even if it doesn't cover all cases of dracunculiasis), as I think that's most due and interesting. But if you feel strongly about broadening the wording in the first paragraph, I can take a crack at it.
• copepods (a small crustacean).: suggest a type of small crustacean to avoid the plural–singular clash.
  • Done.
• Prevention efforts center on filtering drinking water to remove copepods, as well as public education campaigns to discourage people from soaking emerging worms in sources of drinking water.: I would briefly explain the importance of this here.
  • Gave it a little tweak. Let me know if a bigger tweak is necessary.
• physicians of antiquity: antiquity is slightly ambiguous between "a long time ago" and "the Greco-Roman Mediterranean": as we mean the latter, suggest "Greco-Roman antiquity".
  • Done.
• with just 14 cases reported worldwide in 2023. Fifteen previously endemic countries: thinking of MOS:NUM, what's the logic in this article as to numbers in figures versus words?
  • Oops. Intention was to spell out 1-9, numerals for the rest. I think I've caught them all now.
• Fifteen previously endemic countries have been certified to have eradicated dracunculiasis, leaving the disease endemic in just four countries: the just here and in the previous sentence could be read as editorialising: at least in this one, I'd cut to leaving the disease endemic in four.
  • Removed both.
• Any reason to change "the lower leg" in body text to "a lower limb" in the lead? I think the former is slightly clearer, and certainly closer to natural English.
  • Not intentional. Changed to "lower leg".
• Per MOS:LEAD, the lead should stand apart from the body: the body text should therefore start by recapitulating what dracunculiasis is and how it is transmitted. Putting the Cause section first would do this nicely, I think.
  • Good idea. Rearranged.
• As a noun, I think "fresh water" is more usual than "freshwater", though our own article says that they're interchangeable.
  • Separated.
• If too much pressure is applied at any point: any reason not to cut at any point? Omit needless words is generally a good principle.
  • Needless words omitted.
• The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC): why are there dots in U.S. but not CDC?
  • De-dotted US throughout.
• Link antibiotic to antibiotics, and possibly gauze
  • Done.
• can all effectively remove copepods from drinking water: effectively can mean "successfully" or "pretty much": suggest cutting it here to remove the doubt.
  • Done.
• with the larvicide temephos any way to fix the WP:SEAOFBLUE?
  • Removed larvicide since the next few words tell you what temephos does.
• Dracunculiasis is now rare, with just 14 cases reported worldwide in 2023 and 13 in 2022. This is down from 27 cases in 2020, and dramatically less than the estimated 3.5 million annual cases in 20 countries in 1986: I think these adverbs are editorialising. The facts can tell the story without us giving them a prod.
  • Removed.
• hitherto unheard of disease: unheard-of should be hyphenated as a compound modifier.
  • Done.
• Arabic writers like Rhazes and Avicinna aren't usually counted under "Antiquity" -- particularly the latter, who lived into the 11th century.
  • Changed to "Famous Greco-Roman and Arabic physicians..."
    • I would cut famous in practically every situation as a WP:WEASELWORD, difficult to verify (what's the cutoff for "famous", and how do you go about proving that someone has met it? How many people, honestly, would know who Rhazen) and generally unnecessary: if these people weren't famous, we would still be interested in what they had to say. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:41, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
      • Cut.
• Similarly, Friedrich Küchenmeister proposed in 1855 ... In 1959, parasitologist Reinhard Hoeppli: why does Hoeppli get an occupation and Küchenmeister doesn't?
  • Added.
• the Ebers papyrus: I would briefly introduce this by rough provenance, date and subject matter. We do introduce its date a bit later, but better not to hold the reader in suspense.
  • Took a crack at it. Too clunky?
    • Very elegant, I think, but I'd go with parasitologist Reinhard Hoeppli proposed that a prescription in: it's more international and, I think, clearer when you have such a long indirect statement. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:41, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
      • Done.
• an identification later endorsed: any idea of roughly when?
  • Added.
• I would avoid abbreviations like c. in body text; "dating to around 1500 BCE" is clearer, and there's no need under WP:NOTPAPER to save space.
  • Removed.
• the city of Medina: worth saying where this is?
  • Added.
• Avicenna writing as early as his The Canon of Medicine: italicise the title (perhaps as "his Canon of Medicine), and I would suggest cutting "as early as" as editorialising: simply "in his..."
  • Done.
• In Johann Friedrich Gmelin's 13th edition of Systema Naturae: is it worth clarifying that he had taken over Linnaeus' work, as opposed to publishing his own by the same name?
  • Done.
• D. medinensis-infected: use an endash here per MOS:DASH
  • Done.
• during the decade from 1981 to 1990: do we need to be told that this is a decade? Simply "from 1981 to 1990"?
  • Trimmed.
• If the country repeats this feat: not sure that feat is WP:NPOV, though I'm not denying that it's an impressive thing to do.
  • Removed.
• Could File:Guinea worm.png have slightly larger, bolder text? Cf against something like File:Log Graph of Covid-19 Infection Fatality Ratio by age.png, which is clearer at small scale.
  • Made a new graph with the same data. Happy to take any notes on improving the way it looks. I never had a great eye for color, display, etc.
• 1989-2022: use an endash here.
  • Done.
• In the footnote: ellipsis (...) has a space on both sides.
  • Done.

Greatly enjoyed the article, despite its grisly topic: it is clearly and finely written throughout, and does a good job of feeding the reader what they need to make sense of the different strands of it. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks very much for taking the time to review the article. I think I hit everything above. Happy to take any follow-ups or additional issues. Ajpolino (talk) 20:59, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Support: a few minor replies above, but nothing that will be more than a triviality to fix and the article is clearly in good shape – up to the FA criteria in my view. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:41, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Femke (incl. source review)

Wow, you're on a roll :).

• The CDC has changed the names and urls of their pages. For instance, frequently asked questions is no longer called that. Others give 404 errors. Could you update and double check it still supported? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:48, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Agh. I think I've got them all. Updated and verified the info is still on the new pages. It appears that FAQ page has an odd behavior where its title changes depending on page width (I can get both titles just by zooming in and out on the browser). Never seen that before.
• The World Health Organisation citation 22 also has a dead link. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:17, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Wow, resurrected from archive. Thanks to the folks who bot archived all these pages.
• Citations 12 and 13 (Merck & other WHO one) both have a slightly updated web page. Consider updating it. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:28, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Updated.
• I notice you haven't used "Simonetti O, Zerbato V, Maurel C, Cosimi L, Babich S, Cavalli F, Di Bella S, Pavia D, Pesaresi C, Luzzati R (2023). "The current state of knowledge on dracunculiasis: a narrative review of a rare neglected disease". Le Infezioni in Medicina. 31 (4): 500–508. doi:10.53854/liim-3104-9. PMC 10705854. PMID 38075414.". I'm unfamiliar with the journal, so maybe there is a good reason to not include. There is some information in that paper that isn't yet in the article:
  • such as the hypothesis frogs can act as an intermediate host for humans
  • Information on host-pathogen interactions.
    • I've held off on incorporating this source because I too am unfamiliar with it. I can't find anyone commenting on the journal itself, good or bad. It's not published by a major firm. Its editor-in-chief and editorial board members aren't globally well known academics in their fields. The authors of the article don't enjoy wide renown. I don't mean to imply anything negative about it, I just don't have a basis to evaluate whether they represent the medical/scientific mainstream.
    • I've added a sentence on the fish and frogs to the Cause section (cited to another source). On reflection, I probably should've added something sooner.
    • The new information on host-pathogen interactions is not repeated in other sources so I hesitate to include it. I'll keep my eyes peeled though.
• Similarly, [1] isn't used. Contains some very limited information on blood work and on differential diagnosis. Implies fish as a possible infection route for humans. Would it be useful to add?
  • I typically avoid StatPearls articles as a source. They host articles on a broad variety of topics, and the authors typically don't have direct expertise/renown in the topic at hand (e.g. the authors in this article are American hospitalists with no particular reputation in dracunculiasis). Basically, I think they're engaged in the same sport as I am – non-specialists using Pubmed to write informative articles. I think their articles are generally decent quality, but if I see something that's uniquely stated or emphasized in a StatPearls article, it gives me pause.
    • On these particular facts, Eosinophilia (high eosinophils in the blood) is a classic sign of some parasitic infections, so that's not surprising to see. Though in reality folks with dracunculiasis don't get blood draws as they live in extreme rural poverty and the diagnosis is clear once the worm starts emerging. None of the other sources mention blood draws.
    • Ditto the differential diagnoses. They kind of make sense but other sources don't mention them and the idea that they'd be mistaken for dracunculiasis (or vice versa) is a bit unrealistic.
      • Good to know about StatPearls: I wasn't sure I made the right decision to avoid it in ME/CFS, but it now makes sense why it's quite a bit different from the top sources on the topic. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:28, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
• I know it's not part of a FAC source review for experienced nominators, but I've spot checked 10 statements, all of which were a good match to the source.
  • Always appreciated.
• Sources all seem appropriate. Older sources are used in places, but mostly in the history and eradication sections. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

• "The blister eventually bursts to form a painful wound, out of which the worm slowly crawls over several weeks." (out of which / crawls feel a bit awkward) --> Eventually, the blister bursts, creating a painful wound from which the worm gradually emerges over several weeks.
  • Done.
• I would split the first paragraph of eradication into two, as it's tough to read such long paragraphs.
  • Split (though if you think there's a more natural place to split, feel free to change it).
• The only other reptiles affected are snapping turtles with infected common snapping turtles described in several US states --> the bit after with is a bit awkward. Rephrase as "with cases of infected common snapping turtles"..
  • Done
• retroperitoneal space --> gloss? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Glossed

Responses above. Happy to hear any other comments/concerns you may have. Thank you again for your time and efforts Femke. Always appreciated. Ajpolino (talk) 18:06, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Pass source review and support. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:28, 28 April 2024 (UTC)