Wikipedia:Peer review/SENSOR-Pesticides/archive1

SENSOR-Pesticides

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've been working on it for a while, and I'm trying to be accountable and make it the best-quality article possible. I expanded and modified the page at the request of my supervisor, who is the head of the program. I've already posted a COI notice on the talk page. However, I firmly believe that the article is neutral and informative. Ultimately, our goal is to have the article reach GA or A-class status, so it's in our best interest to have it be balanced, informative, and good quality - I am NOT interested in creating a promotional piece!

I don't think it will need much copy-editing, but feel free to make any necessary grammatical changes. What I mostly need is commentary on content - whether there is too much or too little detail, whether more explanations or more sections are needed, if anything needs to be expanded or explained, etc. Obviously I encourage anyone with any knowledge or experience in medicine or surveillance to contribute. I also need input from anyone who is well-versed in Wikipedia guidelines or standards (as I am fairly new here).

All I request is that you detail any major changes you make so that I can have a chance to address them.

Thanks, Mmagdalene722 (talk) 19:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank edit

Sure thing, I'll jot down comments here as I think of them. See if you can write another couple of paragraphs for the introduction that summarize what questions the article addresses, per WP:LEAD. - Dank (push to talk) 19:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done Expanded lead section. Review it at your leisure. Mmagdalene722 (talk) 15:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In general, it would be better not to link terms where the reader doesn't find out much if they follow the link, such as "illness", unless there was something specific you had in mind for them to find out at that link. - Dank (push to talk) 19:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done I removed some of (what I thought were) the more superfluous wikilinks. Mmagdalene722 (talk) 15:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question: which of the references don't have Calvert or anyone else directly associated with the program as authors, and also say something about the SENSOR program itself, as opposed to talking just about the subjects that SENSOR is concerned with? - Dank (push to talk) 19:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The difficult thing about SENSOR (which I've already discussed some on the article's talk page) is that it's not really in public view - it performs surveillance, but mainly for the purpose of research and awareness. You'll get the occasional media attention (e.g. the "Pesticides in Schools" section), but other than that, it's not something that's visible on a national scale like, say, the EPA. I've cited scientific articles written by program scientists as evidence of what SENSOR does in an effort to avoid primary sources (i.e. the program's website). In explaining what the program does, it's difficult to avoid material written by Calvert (who is basically in charge of the program) because, like I said before, there's not a lot of media coverage. However, these articles are all published in academic journals, so they've been rigorously peer-reviewed and should therefore be considered secondary sources (I think).

I'm not sure what you mean by "[saying] something about the program itself." Based on its function, isn't the program explained by what it does? Should a section on staff or something be included? I don't understand what's missing. Mmagdalene722 (talk) 14:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's the kind of information I was looking for, the kind of information you'll need to have handy if you apply for Good Article status at WP:GAN. I guess I'd like to see what others are looking for before I try more general copyediting on this. - Dank (push to talk) 14:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to point out that I used as many secondary articles as I could find for the paragraphs under the "Impact" section - those events that did receive media coverage. I pulled news articles from all over. Does that help? Mmagdalene722 (talk) 15:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Casliber edit

I'll jot some ideas and make some straightforward changes - change back if I inadvertently change the meaning. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pesticides are used extensively in several industries. - gosh this sounds funny, I am sorely tempted to change to "Pesticides are used extensively in many industries." but that may not be any more accurate. I am trying to think of some alternative "Pesticides are used in a wide variety of industries." (?) - need to think on this one.

Done I liked "Pesticides are used in a wide variety of industries," so I went ahead and changed it. Mmagdalene722 (talk) 13:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

..pesticide exposure and illness - maybe just "pesticide-related illness (and adverse effects?)"

These are two separate items - exposure to pesticides doesn't necessarily lead to illness, but it's still something that should be avoided. It's not a sticking point, though - if it helps flow or clarity, you can change it. Mmagdalene722 (talk) 13:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I see, I agree your point is valid and is fine as is. Been madly busy all week, so time has been tricky. More soon. :/ Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking more about the Background section - this only covers occupational exposure, so it doesn't mean inadvertent contact and illness by (say) homeowners right after a pest spray? I was intially wondering - is it worth mentioning there are whole industries solely devoted to pesticide use (eg. termite exterminators for housing etc?)

SENSOR tracks, by nature, occupational exposures (Sentinel Event Notification System for Occupational Risks). I don't mind expanding the background section, but like I said in my response to Colin, there were some misgivings expressed about it being too long on the talk page. If you guys could help me come to a consensus on how much background I should discuss, that would be awesome - I'm not really sure where to go from here. MMagdalene722 ^{talk to me} 13:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done See my note here. MMagdalene722 ^{talk to me} 14:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it worth describing some actual symptoms of exposure and illness (range of commonly see problems) in the Case definition section? Or is this better linked to illness section in pesticide article?

I'm not so sure about this, for a two reasons:

Symptoms of pesticide illness vary over an enormous range, depending on the type (or mixture) of compound, how much they were exposed to, and the individual's physiological variables (i.e. age, weight, sex, etc.).
There's a pesticide poisoning article that (is supposed to) already covers this.

The only problem is that the pesticide poisoning article is currently a complete disaster. I'd like to work on it to bring it up to par, but that's a massive undertaking - way bigger than this little piece. I'd like to get this one where it needs to be first. MMagdalene722 ^{talk to me} 13:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Impact section sort of belongs as example cases in the Case definition section maybe (???)

What I was trying to accomplish with the "Impact" section was to demonstrate instances where the surveillance program was able to use its findings to effect tangible and (relatively) significant change. We publish a lot of papers (as can be seen from previous edits), but if that's all the program does, it's not that noteworthy. I felt like those events demonstrate the program's suitability for Wikipedia. MMagdalene722 ^{talk to me} 13:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is promising, I get the feeling it lacks some cohesiveness, but embellishing some points above should help (also checking how relevant material is covered in other articles as well). Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely appreciate your input. I'll talk to some of the other editors that have peer-reviewed here, and see what they think about the Background section...once I've expanded it, I'll page you again, and we can go from there. Thank you for your help!! MMagdalene722 ^{talk to me} 13:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's cool, I am jugglng alot so don't be afraid to ping me once you've had a play with it some more. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Earwig edit

I echo the comments here and would like to add:

Is an infobox possible? I like to see infoboxes in articles; they're not required, but they help the reader get basic information about the subject without having to read through the entire page.

I looked through the different templates, but I didn't see any that I felt fit this article well. Did you have a particular one in mind? Mmagdalene722 (talk) 19:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph in the History section is completely unreferenced, save for that single one serving the first sentence. I'd like to see some refs for the last three sentences in that paragraph.

The whole paragraph comes from the source cited in the first sentence. Maybe the Wikipedia guidelines are different, but MLA and APA guidelines state that if the information in a paragraph comes from a single source, you only have to cite that source for the first fact from the source. I can add the same citation to the last few sentences, if necessary, but I was trying to be stylistically appropriate (rather than citationally redundant). Mmagdalene722 (talk) 19:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The style you use for dates in references is not consistent. For example, ref #35 uses "September 29, 2009", while ref #25 uses "2009-09-29".

Sorry! Will get to work on that. Mmagdalene722 (talk) 19:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done I think I fixed all of the inconsistencies. Mmagdalene722 (talk) 19:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have for now.

Comments from Colin edit

Here's some notes I've made as I read through.

"there is some public concern about the toxicity of pesticides" I thought all pesticides were toxic so that isn't a "concern". What is a concern is exposure to toxic levels.

See my comment below. MMagdalene722 ^{talk to me} 13:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:LEAD section is not exempt from requiring citations. Some editors feel citations may not be necessary provided a similar statement is clearly present in the body text and the body text is adequately cited. Others prefer to add citations to the lead just like any other section. I'm not sure your lead is just a summary of body or that it is a full summary of the body text.

The lead section of this article is basically a summary of the body. Everything that is mentioned is expanded and cited in the body below. MMagdalene722 ^{talk to me} 13:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Background. I think you are using citations here as examples. That's not what they are for, which is to provide a reliable source to back up the statement made. If you want to give examples (such as retail workers, emergency responders, flight attendants) then do so in the body. Surely we can find one source that discusses pesticide use in various industries without having to cite individual papers discussing accidents. Generally, a string of many citations is discouraged and a warning sign that some original research is going on: that the editor is trying to prove a case rather than cite a source that states the case. I think the article would be improved by discussing pesticide use across industry, perhaps with figures (pie chart?) on how much each industry uses them. Note: the emergency-responder paper doesn't count as a use within industry but rather as an example of people exposed in their line of business to pesticides they didn't use. That's an aspect worth mentioning, if you can find a source that discusses this general point.

Done I've removed most of the "example" citations and reworded the "Background" section so that it flows a bit better. MMagdalene722 ^{talk to me} 13:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to stay away from a more in-depth discussion of pesticide use/exposure in specific industries or among certain classes of occupational workers - while that's what SENSOR's research explores, it probably isn't necessary to go into a detailed treatise in the Wikipedia article ABOUT SENSOR. The background section has already been discussed on the talk page, but if you feel like it should be expanded despite the concerns raised there, let me know. Other users felt like a more detailed discussion would be better suited for a different article.MMagdalene722 ^{talk to me} 13:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done See my note here. MMagdalene722 ^{talk to me} 14:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the "toxicity of pesticides continues to raise public concern" implies there is doubt over their toxicity. Note how your source puts it: "Concern about the adverse public health and environmental effects of pesticide use is persistent." It is "pesticide use" that is concerning and the effects on health and the environment (not just toxicity -- for example, killing insects affects the populations of the animals that eat the insects and so on). The PMID 14691965 paper notes illness incident rates higher in agriculture than non-agriculture - something worth noting.

Done I respectfully disagree with your interpretation of the statement: "toxicity of pesticides continues to raise public concern" implies to me that people are concerned because they're toxic rather than questioning if they're toxic. The book chapter I cited for that statement reads contains that statement almost verbatim. However, I went ahead and changed the wording of the sentence in both the lead and background sections to expand and clarify. MMagdalene722 ^{talk to me} 13:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Medfly. The source doesn't support the "did not pose a risk to residents in treated areas" statement. The source confirms that scientists said "no long-term effect" will result but not that there was no "risk" and overall the scientists were warning that the pesticide was to be treated with some caution. Doing something "safely" doesn't mean "zero risk". The article then follows this with "However" which means you are contradicting the previous statement (i.e. the scientists were wrong). As a Wikipedian you are not allowed to do this (per WP:OR) unless you can cite a reliable source saying "A is wrong because of B" -- it is original research for you conclude that because of B, A is wrong. Having looked at the source for the next sentence, I can't find anything that supports the idea that the spraying wasn't done in a "safe manner" (though improvements were suggested) or that there was a long-term ill effect on anyone. The reader could easily come away with the impression that the 230 cases of illness were officially "attributed to the pesticide" rather than merely being incidents that were investigated -- half of these were not attributed at all, a third were only "possible" and only 15% were "probable" -- which still isn't strong enough to be classed as "attributed to" IMO.

Done I've re-worded that section to read "Scientists from the University of Florida’s Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences stated that malathion was being sprayed in a manner that did not pose a significant risk to public health. Over the course of the eradication effort, 230 cases of illness attributed to the pesticide were reported to and investigated by the Florida Department of Health." MMagdalene722 ^{talk to me} 13:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I've got time for tonight. You've picked a tough subject -- a not-very-notable government program. Colin°^Talk 23:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These were great comments. Thanks very much, Colin! MMagdalene722 ^{talk to me} 13:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Expanded Background section edit

In accordance with comments from several reviewers, I've expanded the background section of the article with more detailed information on exposure in several industries. There are also some additional (non-Calvert :-) sources, so that should help with variety (but please have a look and let me know if they're in the correct format). I plan on putting in a graph or chart from the most recent EPA report cited there in a bit - it's from a gov't doc, so it should be public domain. I know another Wikipedian who's way more experienced with image permissions, so I'll ask him to do that for me. (This has been Done.) Have a look at the expanded section and let me know what you think. Thanks again for all your input! MMagdalene722 ^{talk to me} 14:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from delldot ∇. edit

Great work overall. Some specific comments:

Lead

Define terms and concepts that will be unfamiliar to the lay reader on first use, e.g. total release foggers, routine pooling and analysis

Done Defined "total release fogger" in the lead and changed "routine pooling and analysis" to "regular comparison to analyze for trends." MMagdalene722 ^{talk to me} 18:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Background

Watch out for fluff words that are too vague to mean anything but add useless bulk to the text, e.g. "some", "various", "a number of"

Done I went through the article and tried to simplify the language. MMagdalene722 ^{talk to me} 18:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WEASEL: "some feel that regulatory authorities have an ethical obligation" state who feels this way, or what camp.

This is difficult. The textbook chapter reads "Because society allows pesticides to be disseminated into the environment, society also incurs the obligation to track the health effects of pesticides." This is a very strong statement and seemed overly POV for the article. I suppose if it comes straight from the source, it can be in the article, but I figured that such a strongly worded statement would draw criticism, so...I'm not really sure what to do with it. ~~I'll look for some more sources on it and come back.~~ MMagdalene722 ^{talk to me} 18:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done I found some specific quotations and an article from JAMA to back up the statement. MMagdalene722 ^{talk to me} 19:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SLASH: "developing and/or refining reporting systems" and "surveillance and/or interventions " and/or discouraged. do a search through the whole article for and/or

Done I found and changed all of them. MMagdalene722 ^{talk to me} 18:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History

Citations needed for all but one sentence in the paragraph beginning "Beginning in 1987, NIOSH supported..."

See my response to The Earwig. All of the information in that paragraph comes from that citation. Do I need to put it after every sentence? MMagdalene722 ^{talk to me} 18:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would, but it's your judgment call. My arguments for it are that it allows flexibility; if you or someone else wants to move something around or add another sentence in, the citation of the rest won't be lost nor will something be falsely attributed to your source. Plus, any reader will know that that material is supposed to use that source; this way it's ambiguous and just looks uncited. Is there a disadvantage to citing it each time? If you don't put them after every sentence, I'm more familiar with putting the ref at the end of the last sentence in the para, but I think it's true that it can be either way. delldot ∇. 05:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look for ways to tighten up the wording. e.g. "on a regular basis" -> "regularly" (or, in other cases, consider whether this qualifier is necessary). A lot of this article looks like it's written in the funny formal language of government reports, that use "at this time" and other unnecessarily wordy phrases.

Done I've gone through and tried to simplify the language, putting things in active voice and getting rid of unnecessary words. MMagdalene722 ^{talk to me} 18:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Check out Tony1's redundancy reducing exercises and try to spot sentences in this article that could use them. e.g. "~~Three states (~~California, Oregon, and Texas) joined the program that year, and more states ~~joined the program in the years that~~ followed."

This was a big help. Thank you! MMagdalene722 ^{talk to me} 18:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone's liable to get on you for the pictures not having ALT text.

Done

Data

Avoid passive voice if possible: "When a report is received, the information is reviewed to determine whether it was pesticide-related. "

Done I've gone through and tried to simplify the language, putting things in active voice and getting rid of unnecessary words. MMagdalene722 ^{talk to me} 18:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Impact

"The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) incorporated these suggestions into their 2001 Environmental Impact Statement on the Fruit Fly Cooperative Control Program." Is it a big deal to be incorporated into this statement? Maybe you can clarify what it means that this happened, what the impact of SENSOR's findings actually was.

Done I added this sentence at the end of that section to explain the significance: "These impact statements affect the USDA's development of insect control strategies and decisions." MMagdalene722 ^{talk to me} 18:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Birth defects

"Because one case had worked in North Carolina and the other two worked in Florida, neither state initially recognized the cluster." What does 'cases' mean? Is this saying that the mothers had worked there? Maybe "Because in one case the mother had worked in North Carolina and in the other two they had worked in Florida, neither state initially recognized the cluster."

Done I changed it to read "Because one of the women had worked..." MMagdalene722 ^{talk to me} 18:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Total release foggers

Explain what a total release fogger is, how it works, or what it does, in one sentence.

Done

See also

All of these are duplicated in the article, and See also sections are discouraged, so I'd remove this.

Done

Refs

The journal refs are great. The press releases not so much, but you work with what's available.

General

Structure looks good.
Do you know about the feature of the {{reflist}} template that lets you put the lengthy refs at the bottom in the edit window and leave the little tags in the body? Makes it easier to edit.

~~Actually I don't...I'm pretty new to Wikipedia. Is there a tutorial for it or an explanation somewhere?~~ MMagdalene722 ^{talk to me} 18:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done

The article's written in a technical language that seems stilted, like a government report. Maybe get someone who owes you a favor to give it a copy edit.

I tried to fix as much as I could, and I'll keep reviewing it. Unfortunately, my best copy-editor is working in Alice Springs in the middle of the bush in Australia, so...I guess that's what peer review is for? :-/ MMagdalene722 ^{talk to me} 18:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very impressive work! delldot ∇. 05:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good work! delldot ∇. 16:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Taxman edit

What's there is well written and well referenced, at least for GA level. The problem is that the article's structure doesn't cleanly lay out all the most important facets of the topic and them work it's way down. If it did the background section would be generally unneeded. For further example, the Case definition section seems like a rather fine point, not really one of the top five most important sub topics regarding SENSOR. Also the impact section doesn't cleanly give the impact of the program in an upfront way, instead it is driven by specific discrete events. I think the problem could be solved by more simple direct description of the general effects of the program before explaining the several examples in a bit more summarized way. I'm not sure I'm explaining myself well, but an ideal article should identify the most important aspects of a topic and focus on those. Then within each section on those most important aspects, only the most important relevant information should be focused on. In other words, an article should show clear prioritization. Then the lead section should further reflect this by summarizing only the very most important, general information about the topic. It's possible the lead does this, but it seems it is still giving examples in the third paragraph rather than giving more of the overview that is needed. A more minor point is the word "disinsection" in the background section, while an interesting one, is probably too specialist for the article which would be better served by rewording the sentence to something like "Treating aircrafts with pesticides can also make ...". Overall really nice work. But since you asked, I'm pointing out the things that separate it from a really great article. Sorry it won't be really easy to implement. - 22:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. Were there any concrete or definitive suggestions for additions, reorganization, or change that you wanted to propose for this? I can try to address issues that you've raised, but I have very little guidance from these comments.

The problem is I don't know the topic, so I don't know what are the most important facets of it. The structure must be based on that and therefore I can't give you one. - Taxman ^Talk 15:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The article's structure doesn't cleanly lay out all the most important facets of the topic and then work its way down." - I respectfully disagree. If you're looking at a surveillance program, the most important things (I think) are: what it is, who runs it, how it started, what kind of data it collects, and what it's accomplished. Plus not every article has an identical structure. See the FBI article, for example: its topics are "Mission and Priorities," "Legal authority," "History," "Publications," "Crime statistics," "Media portrayal," etc. I feel like the SENSOR article has a similar breakdown, given its minor scope relative to the FBI.

Well that organization from FBI is quite a bit different from the one in this article and is closer to an organization beased on priority of information. Adopting similar to this article could work, but for the smaller scope of course. - Taxman ^Talk 15:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as surveillance goes, a case definition is important: if you collect data on pesticide poisoning cases, you have to know what a "case" is. Case definition is crucial to any epidemiological study. What do you feel are the "most important subtopics regarding SENSOR"? How would you organize them?

It probably is important, it's just nowhere near as important as say the mission and scope of the organization to give an example from the potential organization you gave above. I'm really sorry I can't give you a perfect organization to go with, I can only tell you how to do it, and that's prioritize the information and decide what it truly the most basic and core and make that the headings. Case definition could be covered under data collection since that is where the definition is applied. - Taxman ^Talk 15:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your assessment of the impact section. I was toying with the idea of adding a general "summary" paragraph of what the program does with its results and point out those paragraphs as examples of major effects, so I'll probably add that in.

Done

Per WP:LEAD: "The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article. The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article." The lead paragraph is a summary of the article - so if the article does its job, the lead section should fulfill both requirements. The lead section currently (I feel) summarizes the article. If any major changes are made, I will change the lead paragraph accordingly.
I'll add a definition of "disinsection" to the background section.

Done

I'll work on this some more tomorrow. Some more specific suggestions or guidance would be greatly appreciated. MMagdalene722 ^{talk to me} 05:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]