Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Collaboration of the Month/Expired nominations

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine‎ | Collaboration of the Month

2021 edit

Immune system edit

This is a vital Featured article that receives 5,500 average daily views, and has been proposed to run on the mainpage at TFA as the COVID vaccine is launched. The article has good bones, and I think we could tune it up in time to provide the benefit to our readers as the vaccine is launched, and it would be a good showcase for WPMED's work. Please see my plea at article talk.[1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:06, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Ajpolino (talk) 17:22, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:27, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Perhaps (??) we have made enough progress on this article that we can move on to a different article for the MCOTM (if other editors will look in here and make sure it's tuned up enough for the mainpage). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:24, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Super! With that in mind, we'll move on to something else for December. Updating now. Ajpolino (talk) 00:38, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Archiving, since this made it to TFA. Thanks to all who helped out! Ajpolino (talk) 17:57, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2020 edit

Scleroderma edit

Daily average page views for 2019 were 1,655, C-class, mid importance, listy with cleanup needs, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:44, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Comments

  • I am going to throw in for either tonsillitis or dexamethasone, as both are B-class with higher page views. Between the two, I have a slight preference for tonsillitis, but only because I rarely work on drug articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:27, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brucellosis edit

A zoonotic infection with a long and interesting history; huge parts of this article (especially the parts that need MEDRS sources) are unsourced. With 845 views per day, this isn't as high-profile as some of the other candidates here... but hey, I think it's interesting. Spicy (talk) 14:28, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Spicy (talk) 14:28, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

2016 and earlier edit

Placebo edit

Nominated at 18:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC).

This article is a rambling, out-of-date treatise that can and should give clearer information about--for example--the placebo effect in response treatments as diverse as high quality evidence-based medicine to medical quackery, why placebo controls are necessary for a quality study, and the known and suspected mechanisms involved.

Support

  1. — Scientizzle 18:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Enviropearson (talk) 03:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. LeeVJ (talk) 22:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. — --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments.

  • This has also been proposed at the Pharmacology project. If chosen, it might be nice for both projects to coordinate its development. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is within the scope of Medicine(B Class), Psychology(Start Class), Philosophy(B Class), Rational Skepticism(B Class), Alternative Medicine(B Class) and Philosophy(Start Class). This is a great opportunity for cross-disciplinary collaboration. -Enviropearson (talk) 03:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it is pointless if one WikiProject starts working on this without the input of the others. If elected, I would suggest posting messages on the other WikiProjects' talk pages to engage their members. JFW | T@lk 11:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On reflection of this I have come up with a proposal for Queued articles on the discussion page, LeeVJ (talk) 00:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Developmental milestonesChild development stages edit

Nominated at 16:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC).

This important topic in pediatrics is just a stub. Support

  1. —KetanPanchaltaLK 16:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. JFW | T@lk 07:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • I found out that the topic was being dealt with by a list (rather than an article with a complicated name: Child development stages. It's a well compiled list, and I'm not sure if needs urgent attention. Still, I urge others to go through the article and decide if it requires any improvement. I have also proposed that developmental milestones be merged with this article. —KetanPanchaltaLK 16:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ADHD edit

Nominated at 17:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC).

This article is of a very controversial nature. Is an important topic due to how common it is. However it doesn't currently provide a good overview of the evidence.

Support

  1. Doc James (talk) 17:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. JFW | T@lk 16:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. 92.5.155.82 (talk) 10:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC) I'd agree with this, more eyes would be helpful.[reply]
  4. Jeyradan (talk) 16:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Sifaka talk 02:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. cyclosarin (talk) 10:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Nja247 21:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Unionhawk Talk 00:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 21:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. RobinHood70 (talk) 18:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Hordaland (talk) 14:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. --Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Hyperion35 (talk) 05:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Commit charge18:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. scuro (talk) 01:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC) There has been a thaw, and we have agreed that the article can be chosen after the ADHD Arbitration Amendment has been closed.[reply]
  16. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  15:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments.

  • This is not where content disputes should be re-hashed.
  • Comment There currently is an Arbitration case involving this article (see here). I think we should wait for that to settle down before we go ahead and add large amounts of information. Renaissancee (talk) 23:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Will this be for only the main article or also the nine subarticles that are split off?--scuro (talk) 13:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you'd list them here? - Hordaland (talk) 14:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand how your question answers my question.--scuro (talk) 03:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My 'question' was intended to ask you to flesh out your question. Not everyone has at her/his fingertips what those 9 are.
I know very little about the MCOTW process and cannot answer your question. - Hordaland (talk) 16:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) In response to Hordaland's request, here is an alphabetized list of sub-articles I was able to find by doing a search for "main article" in the ADHD article, including the horizontal list at the bottom - feel free to edit this list to add any others that may have been missed due to the limitations of that search.

--RobinHood70 (talk) 18:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I need positive evidence that this article is safe for MCOTW. JFW | T@lk 23:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I've moved the entire discussion to the talk page. If you want to snipe at another editor, please let me suggest finding a nice brick wall somewhere. ;-)

If that won't do, then you can try the talk page. I've left the above notes here because of the potentially handy links to related articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:08, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's been quiet as of late in ADHD. Now might be a good time to consider making this the weekly collab since it has been relatively friendly. Sifaka talk 20:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anatomy edit

Nominated at 23:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC).

Scouring 0.7 release candidate, this was one of two articles that caught my attention that deserved attention. A top importance article - C-class! Was a former GAN. This a fairly short overview type article so shouldn't be too tricky to get into shape!.plenty of images and easy references should be available.(C- class)(60,000 hits)(top)

Support

  1. LeeVJ (talk) 23:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. JFW | T@lk 23:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments.

Migraine edit

Nominated at 23:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC).

Scouring 0.7 release candidate, this was one of two articles that caught my attention that deserved attention. A meaty article 100+ refs already, but doesn't seem to have had a collaboration of the week applied to it before...(B-class)(115,000)(mid)(todo)

Support

  1. LeeVJ (talk) 23:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. JFW | T@lk 23:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kpjas (talk) 19:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments.

  • Definitely. JFW | T@lk 23:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chest pain edit

Nominated at 09:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC).

Based on page view statistics I obtained from MedlinePlus, this subject scores quite poorly. Symptoms in general are imho less developed compared to conditions. Perhaps this could become an example of a good symptom article.

Support

  1. Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 09:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kpjas (talk) 19:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC) - challenging[reply]
  3. JFW | T@lk 19:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Full Genome Sequencing edit

Nominated at 19:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC).

February 23, 2009

Support

  1. This technology will be commercialized by the end of the year and will be a tremendously powerful new technology for our entire civilization. It is a major component of Kurzweil's Singularity and is an integral component of the genetic revolution. The entire future of medicine, such as the rapidly emerging field of Predictive Medicine, will be based upon this new technology that will change the paradigm of medicine from being reactionary to being proactive against disease.
  2. Support NCurse work 15:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments.

Hypertension edit

This article is rambling and difficult to read as it now exists. It seems to me that if you didn't already know the information presented in the article, it would be tough to learn it from there. Hypertension is extremely common; I suspect that this page gets a lot of views and has the potential to have a big impact. It ought to be a shining example of what a medical wikipedia page can be. Wawot1 (talk) 23:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Wawot1 (talk) 23:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. JFW | T@lk 09:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:05, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Comments.

Mental retardation edit

An important article, I think -- I disagree with the "mid-importance" rating it has been given. It's a touchy subject for a variety of reasons, and really should be an example of our best work. It's currently not terrible, but not particularly great. The Japanese article is apparently featured, so perhaps some Japanese-speaking editors can work from there. 98.218.124.185 (talk)

Support

  1. 98.218.124.185 (talk)
  2. JFW | T@lk 09:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

  • Issues about rating should not be raised here. I also don't think we should be dependent on the content of the Japanese article. JFW | T@lk 09:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bipolar disorder edit

Very important, high-profile topic currently at B class with the potential to be made into a GA, or perhaps FA, with enough effort and community collaboration. According to WikiProject Medicine's popular pages, bipolar disorder is the 17th most viewed website with 372920 views, or 12430 views per day. I therefore see it as of vital importance that this topic reaches a good status, and given that we have some psychiatrists involved in the project, it might be worth a shot getting them to lead us through the renovation of the topic. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  07:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  07:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. JFW | T@lk 09:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Breast cancer edit

This top importance article is currently of mediocre B quality. The community's assistance would be invaluable. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. WS (talk) 17:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. JFW | T@lk 01:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chronic Fatigue Syndrome edit

Nominated at 17:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC).

This article has historically been through a significant number of disputes and could use a collaboration of those with a better medical understanding of the condition, from all sides of the larger medical debate, to judge it for weight and accuracy.

Support

  1. RobinHood70 (talk) 17:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sam Weller (talk) 19:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Ward20 (talk) 22:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Does this refer only to the main article or also the numerous subarticles that were once split off? JFW | T@lk 19:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking only of the main article, but I would imagine the sub-articles would benefit from a body of editors as well. Merging some of them back into the main article might also be appropriate, though I know that's been debated in the past and ultimately nothing was done. --RobinHood70 (talk) 19:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC) (Edited: 20:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Merging some subarticles might be OK, as CFS is not overlong. A way of ensuring that the remaining subarticles are accurately summarized is needed. Sam Weller (talk) 19:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hepatitis edit

Monthly view count of 70k+, currently in pretty shoddy state. LT90001 (talk) 08:07, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is also rated top importance. I "vote" for this as I think it might potentially draw more contributors. Lesion (talk) 14:44, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great candidate, but this is one of the few articles being edited as part of the UCSF elective - but just for another week. Perhaps if we are to select this, we could wait until January? -- Scray (talk) 21:54, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Psoriasis is Dec, so I understand this would be Jan. Lesion (talk) 21:59, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cancer edit

A top-importance article of fundamental importance to this project. --LT910001 (talk) 14:39, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have the feeling that this is already a reasonably good article and would get more benefit from rigorous review against quality standards and perhaps external review. JFW | T@lk 21:07, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Pregnancy edit

A top-importance article of fundamental importance to the project. --LT910001 (talk) 14:39, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree that this should be getting attention. JFW | T@lk 21:07, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Pregnancy occurs when a sperm fertilizes an egg after it's released from the ovary during ovulation. The fertilized egg then travels down into the uterus, where implantation occurs. A successful implantation results in pregnancy. On average, a full-term pregnancy lasts 40 weeks. 
First of all the question should be what is fertilizâtion? 
Fertilization is when the male gamete fuses with the female gamete. ( user talk: esosalaw) , 6 July 2020

Rheumatoid arthritis edit

A common and disabling disease that deserves better. Given the copious literature it would ideally suited for collaborative editing. JFW | T@lk 21:05, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. --WS (talk) 11:12, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hearing loss edit

Support

  1. a top importance grade C article. Some high importance articles I'm aware of that would be good for some collaborative effort are snoring, Oral cancer andpost nasal drip. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 19:22, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Definitely. Major cause of disability in many age groups. JFW | T@lk 20:42, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Collaboration_of_the_Month/Expired_nominations&oldid=1142509912"