Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Timeline of peptic ulcer disease and Helicobacter pylori

Timeline of peptic ulcer disease and Helicobacter pylori edit

Useful list, carefully annotated with lots of references. I'll leave it to the subject area experts to comment on how comprehensive it is. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 08:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm the author so I'll refrain from voting. I did ask WP:CLINMED to check it for accuracy and a few people said it looked good. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 23:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - What a list! :) Anyway maybe more external links, images? NCurse _work 17:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added some images, although I'm agnostic about whether they improve the timeline or not. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 00:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - thanks for the work. NCurs e _work 11:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ – Interesting topic, well referenced. Timelines can be a featured list: see Timeline of discovery of solar system planets and their natural satellites and Timeline of Apple Macintosh models but I don't think this one fulfils the criteria. 1a ask for "bringing together a group of related articles that are likely to be of interest to a user researching that topic" which this doesn't do as neither the researchers nor their discoveries are notable enough to have their own articles (apart from the obvious few exceptions). I don't know how we can tell it is comprehensive (1b) – what are the criteria for including an event? I'm sure there's lots of research that could be mentioned, so the choice might be editorial rather than objective. Are some of the (especially old) references actually references that the editor has consulted (to at least abstract level) or are they just the paper that was published that recorded the "event" being mentioned. If the latter, then they don't really belong in the references section (the actual paper/book where those references were lifted from should be cited instead). There is some missing information that is covered by the Helicobacter pylori article: the triple (and quadruple) treatments and also the sequencing of some strains of the bacterium. Some of the prose could be better, e.g. "Meets criticism, which was, at least in part, well-founded." and could benefit from perhaps a little expansion for the uninitiated. Is Bismuth (the element) what is being referred to, or only certain bismuth compounds? It might be interesting, in the timeline, to note changes in both the diminishing use of anti acid treatments and the increasing cure (or reducing prevalence) of peptic ulcers. Colin°^Talk 21:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for looking at the article. I have some concerns over your objections.

Re:1a I would like to point out that if this article doesn't meet the list criteria under 1a, you are eliminating it from being featured in anyway. Personally, if the featured list criteria excludes articles of this type, I think, so much the worse for the featured list criteria.

Re:1b Inclusion is, of course, somewhat subjective, but not my editorial choice. I have read most of the prominent histories of H. pylori and PUD and included everything in any of those. So, inclusion/exclusion has been decided by prominent researchers, who's decisions I trust.

Re:References I have not consulted all of the referenced, but have read reports or summaries of them. I thought including them would be helpful for those researching the area. In general, I'm not sure its required that I have read every reference, but rather the references are provided so that the accuracy of the wikipedia article may be checked by an interested reader. As such, they serve this purpose.

Re:Inclusion My intention for the article was to follow the discovery that H. pylori and PUD were related, once that was widely accepted, finding adequate treatment options, etc, was beyond its scope. Given the length of the timeline, I'm inclined not to widen the scope. If others think it appropriate however, I will do so. (p.s. I changed the description of the list to be more clear about its scope. It now reads, "Here is a timeline of the events relating to the discovery that PUD is caused by H. pylori.")

Re:Prose I will attempt to improve the two items you point out. Are there others you would like me to fix? Thanks again for your time. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 00:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding 1a, it has been agreed before that linking to other articles may not be absolutely necessary if the list is informative enough. See Wikipedia_talk:Featured_list_candidates#Lists_that_don.27t_have_links. List of Mega Man weapons was an example of that (though the article was deleted recently!) -- Run e Welsh | ταλκ 08:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if my interpretation of the criteria is wrong, please do correct me. However, perhaps the criteria should be updated, if we wish to make it more inclusive. Ultimately, there will still be good content on Wikipedia that doesn't fit the Featured List or Featured Article criteria. Featured Timelines? I'd also like an academic to confirm my comments on the references. My concerns are that without reading at least the abstract, then you have nothing much to go on other than the comment/context in the book or paper that the editor read. As such, it is that source that should be cited - however there is no reason why the footnote can't say "Smith (2003), p3 citing Blogs et al (1946) "Helicoblacter..."." Re: scope. As long as the scope is well defined, then those missing entries are explained. However, I think that after reading through the timeline, you could reward the reader with some of the outcomes of the discovery. Colin°^Talk 08:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a published graduate student in philosophy. Depending on what you mean by academic, I might qualify :) I agree that perhaps including some later developments would be nice. Let me think about which ones fit the scope. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 19:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bismuth = salicylate bismuth salts, commonly marketed as Pepto-Bismol -- Samir धर्म 05:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some research on citing your sources. If (as you admit) you are relying on secondary sources (books, review articles) for the information, then you must use that source in your references. Where the secondary source is citing a primary source (the original paper) and you have not read that source (even at abstract level) then you must not claim it as a reference but may list it in your Footnotes and say "as cited in", then giving the reference you used. You can't expect a reader to be any more able/willing to dig out the primary source than you are to verify your statements. You may want to consider renaming your "References" section as "Footnotes" and moving some of the general/frequently-used references to a bullet-point "References" section. The "Helicobacter Pioneers" book and "A century of Helicobacter pylori" review are perhaps candidates for this move. Since you are using those references to dictate which discoveries/papers are significant, then they are more than just specific sources – they have a general-reference purpose. Also, such a move will allow you to say "as cited in Marshall (2002)", where the reader can find the full citation for "Marshall (2002)" in the References. You can abbreviate the citations for chapters in this book in the same way. Colin°^Talk 22:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your concerns over maintaining appropriate citations. But, can you point me to this policy? I think it ought to be changed. In particular, I don't understand what the concern is. I am reading reputable sources summarizing the work of others. Several of these summaries are the very same authors summarizing their earlier work. For instance, Freedberg (1940) was summarized by Freedberg (2002). I think its fair to assume he got himself right. Furthermore, I'm afraid it will be almost impossible for me to do what you now request, as I don't remember where I got each citation from (I have read substantially more than the Marshall edited volume). Because this is in consort with my dissertation project, I am working my way through the citations we use know. I promise that if I find any which are incorrect in the article I will change them. Is this sufficient to alleviate your concerns? --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 23:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well the policy isn't Wikipedia's to change. It is just basic academic integrity/honesty – you don't claim references you didn't actually refer to. It has been a while since my uni tutor explained it to me so I'm a bit rusty. Web sites where the policy is explained (wrt to certain referencing styles) include Managing References FAQ, AMA Quick Ref(PDF), and AQA-style FAQ. In terms of fixing this article, it is less important where you originally got it from, as long as you can find just one of your references to back it up. Colin°^Talk 16:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that continuing this argument is merely academic at this point. I do not have the time to go through each citation and figure out which article it came from in the next few days. I feel like the objection has largely been blown out of proportion in this case, but you are indeed entitled to your opinion. If this is a sufficient objection to kill the FL nomination, then so be it. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 18:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This shouldn't be an impediment: I've read all of the latter primary sources in question (24-26 and 28-), and will run through the list tonight. -- Samir धर्म 21:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help, Samir! --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 23:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked around and one person has suggested that my issue with the references, although appropriate for a peer-reviewed journal, is not required for Wikipedia. So, whilst I think the timeline would be improved if those rules were followed, I'll drop my opposition. If other folk support this list, I won't let those issues get in the way. Colin°^Talk 08:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ - good stuff. The only reason I am not jumping to support is a bit short lead. So if you could just expand a bit... Renata 03:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for looking at it. I have expanded the intro. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 05:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - good enough. Renata 06:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ulcer picture! Take your pic at Category:Endoscopic images -- Samir धर्म 05:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I added the top one from Gastric ulcer. How's it look? --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 06:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Great! We should add info on MALT lymphomas. As an aside, as the academic gastroenterologist here, I should probably edit the article as opposed to leaving comments. -- Samir धर्म 06:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also the discovery of non-pylori Helicobacter species (heilmanni, kanadeii, etc.) should probably be mentioned also. I need to chase refs -- Samir धर्म 06:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sounds good, although note the discussion about the article's scope above. (I'm not committed to the article having that limited scope, so if you want to expand it feel free.) Thanks for helping out. I'm stretched pretty thin and my current knowledge of the topic has been exhausted. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 06:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Reviewed and tweaked the lead. A couple of omissions need to be added: (1) the chronic active gastritis -> ulcer -> carcinoma spectrum that has been elucidated since 1994 has revolutionized the way we treat H pylori. I need to dig up the refs and (2) treatment of Helicobacter and Helicobacter resistance (which is shaping practice in the 21st century). I added the Borody ref as first use of triple therapy, but I need some time to pull out the big therapy refs. -- Samir धर्म 04:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, Colin makes some very valid points on what should and what should not be included. I would probably include sequencing as well, although I'm not that familiar with the molecular literature -- Samir धर्म 04:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question. I'm a bit lost now and I'd like either Samir or Kzollman to help me out. Have all significant omissions been added? Is the scope of the list already estable? I'd promote the list as it is, but I'm not quite comfortable with the idea of major changes after promotion, so I'd like to make sure the list is not promoted before its time. Thanks -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 13:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think all major additions have been added, although there may be still a few entries to come. Personally, I think all critical bases in the scope are covered, although there may be a few tangentially related events that will be added (primarily by Samir). I don't think anyone intends to change the scope of the list. I should probably let Samir answer, though, since he knows better what he thinks need to be added :) --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 18:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Added molecular biology, resistance, virulence factors, info on bleeding and the Maastrich consensus. It looks complete to me now. Great list, I'll be using it to teach my residents -- Samir धर्म 07:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]