Wikipedia

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

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine‎ | Collaboration of the Week

Connective tissue disease edit

Nominated on 04:35, July 30, 2005 (UTC); if not selected by August 6, needs 2 votes to remain in consideration.

Currently a one-sentence substub. The individual articles are more developed, but this should be a good summary summarizing the diseases and showing how they fit together and such.

Support

  1. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:35, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Comments

Systemic inflammatory response syndrome edit

Nominated on 04:00, July 26, 2005 (UTC); if not selected by August 16, 2005, needs 6 votes to remain in consideration.

This is a pretty important syndrome and really should have more than the criteria and a few causes.

Support

  1. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:00, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
  2. — JFW | T@lk 06:53, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Eleassar   my talk 11:53, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. →Encephalon | Ϟ | ζ 07:30:10, 2005-08-07 (UTC)

Comments

Protein edit

Nominated on 18:22, 5 August 2005 (UTC); if not selected by Aug 19, 2005, needs 4 votes to remain in consideration.

This article is not in terrible shape, but such a fundamental topic should be featured article quality.

Support

  1. Mr.Bip 18:25, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. →Encephalon | Ϟ | ζ 07:30:10, 2005-08-07 (UTC)
  3. PhatRita 13:29, 7 August 2005 (UTC) (could do with a little more although low priority as the page is pretty good already)[reply]

Comments

Psychotherapy edit

Nominated on 21:06, 5 August 2005 (UTC); if not selected by 26 August, needs 6 votes to remain in consideration.

important topic that affects many people, needs further improvement

Support

  1. Fenice 21:06, 5 August 2005 (UTC) support withdrawn, as per comments of users below - I agree, it is probably not within the scope of this collaboration.[reply]
  2. JoeSmack (talk) 21:15, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Lumos3 22:04, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. siafu 22:06, 5 August 2005 (UTC) Withdrawn. siafu 15:31, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Ombudsman 23:43, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Vaughan 19:48, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. whicky1978 03:10, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Comments

  1. This is a vast topic and only a collaboration can begin to build an article that does it justice. Lumos3
  2. I have a concern regarding this nomination: The introduction to this project states: "The topics may either relate to medical basic sciences (anatomy, biochemistry, and so on), or clinical medicine (illnesses, surgical procedures, and so on)." Although there is much scientific about the practice of psychotherapy, I am not certain that it primarily relates to what the original founders of this project had in mind. (edited) Edwardian 18:18, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, you're concerned because a) you don't consider Mental illness to be medically-related, and b) the people behind this nomination are new here? siafu 04:43, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • a) No, I am concerned that only a small amount of the information in Psychotherapy or Mental illness pertains to "medical basic sciences" or "clinical medicine". b) No. (edited) Edwardian 06:17, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK Guys - I would like to try to douse what seems like a spark that could start a flame war. I think that Edwardian is concerned based on comments that have been left by Fenice on the bottom of these talk pages: Vaughan, JoeSmack, siafu, Whicky1978, and especially Lumos3 - Fenice writes here that "I am doing these mass mailings a lot." <- (comment by Mr.Bip, signature added to clarify by --Fenice)

-- You are of course free to decrease the number of participants in any project again by spreading your own mass-mailing, Mr. Bip! In this case, I'll point you to the list of interested contributors for psychotherapy - if you want to do this, drop me a message at my talk page.--Fenice 09:57, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Psychotherapy is a perfectly fine nomination, but it is surprising to see such an unexpected surge of support. I think that if all of you are passionate about working on Psychotherapy, it's not necessary to flood a COTW project to acheive your goal - you can get together and edit the article yourselves. Since this is a small project, you can create a big hiccup in our normal operations by packing in votes on a particular nomination. If you'd like to help out this COTW and our parent projects, you are of course more than welcome to do so. I also welcome Fenice's point of view. Mr.Bip 05:39, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Bip's comments sum up my concerns nicely. As Edwardian alludes above, while psychotherapy is a part of medicine, my worry is that it will fall outside the expertise of most of the usual participants here—I personally would be able to add very little, nor do I have any reference books that would help. I was a bit troubled by the campaiging, but as long as the voters are prepared to work on the article, and hopefully can help us out in the future, I welcome the participation (and as Mr. Bip says, you don't need a formal collaboration—you can just go ahead and work on the article now!). In any case, I hope that the supporters will stay with our project and help us improve other articles in the future, and I thank User:Fenice for his efforts in publicizing our new collaboration. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:10, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

This article is sorely underwritten. A topic like this needs a preview page with summations of larger articles underneath. I am working on this and will post updates and the sandbox where people can comment. But this will take quite a while to write properly and thoroughly. Additionally, I am not sure that the "medical" nomemclature is appropriate and would stir considerable debate. Please hold off on this decision. Rsugden 17:39, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Organ transplant edit

Nominated on 01:36, 13 August 2005 (UTC); if not selected by August 27, 2005, needs 4 votes to remain in consideration.

Important topic, article should be much higher quality

Support

  1. WS 01:36, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Knowledge Seeker 04:28, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Comments

  • I'd like to vote for this, but I would like to define our scope for improving this article before I commit to such a big topic. I believe this is one of those topics where one big "organ transplant" article might be to broad to be helpful without inital guidelines. I'm not a surgeon, but from what I know, there are many, many issues attached to this topic, including the various challeneges, scientific and ethical, raised by *each* different transplant procedures. For each procedure, there's history to be fleshed out, technical details, bioethical questions, recent advances, and more. Can anyone help? Mr.Bip 06:56, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gas exchange edit

Nominated on 03:38:49, 2005-08-14 (UTC); if not selected by August 28, 2005, needs 4 votes to remain in consideration.

Important topic in basic sciences (physiology) as well as Medicine. In pretty bad state.

Support

  1. Encephalon | ζ | Σ 03:38:49, 2005-08-14 (UTC)
  2. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:05, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Comments

Human development edit

Nominated on 17:36, 14 August 2005 (UTC); if not selected by August 28, 2005, needs 4 votes to remain in consideration.

Where it all starts... Currently a two sentence stub. Almost nothing to find about the biological side of this subject on wikipedia. There is already a lot of info on psychological development in other articles which can be easily integrated.

Support

  1. WS 17:36, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Mr.Bip 06:56, 15 August 2005 (UTC) - it's ridiculous that WP doesn't have at least a skeleton for a topic like this.[reply]
  3. Edwardian 06:51, 18 August 2005 (UTC) - As noted below, anything to do with embryology, specifically human embryology, needs a kick in the arse.[reply]

Comments

Vaccine edit

Nominated on 17:53, 8 August 2005 (UTC); if not selected by August 29, 2005, needs 6 votes to remain in consideration.

This article needs to be greatly expanded and brought up to date with all of the recent developments in the vaccine field (AIDS, H5N1, novel vaccines)

Support

  1. Mr.Bip 17:53, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Ombudsman 06:37, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Geni 12:18, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Alex.tan 04:55, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Cybergoth 20:04, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Birth defect edit

Nominated on 07:33, 22 August 2005 (UTC); if not selected by August 29, 2005, needs 2 votes to remain in consideration.

This is an important topic which deserves a clear, encyclopedic entry. This article is closely tied to teratology, which also needs work. "Birth defect" redirects to congenital disorder, but I'm not sure if the two really are equivalent, or which one is more appropriate.

Support

  1. Mr.Bip 07:33, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • If you look at the congenital disorder article you will see that the relationship is clearly explained. Birth defect is a subset of congenital disorders usually involving a structural alteration of a body part usually apparent (or at least present) at birth or in early infancy. Feel free to elaborate in a separate article, but for right now a redirect is probably appropriate. alteripse 20:58, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Residency (medicine) edit

Nominated on 05:30, August 23, 2005 (UTC); if not selected by September 6, 2005, needs 4 votes to remain in consideration.

Obviously, a very important subject for me right now (any other residents out there?). As User:Encephalon mentioned on the talk page, this article needs to be merged with Medical residency. I tend to feel that the former title is better for the merged article, but we can discuss that further. This article really needs to be a lot more comprehensive. It seems pretty consistent with U.S. residency, although it could use more detail and reorganization, and I am not sure how well it reflects practices in other parts of the world.

Support

  1. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:30, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
  2. David Rubentalk 20:41, 23 August 2005 (UTC). Very US-centric, both in terms used, hourly restrictions (somewhat similar rules being enforced across Europe/UK) and career path to Consultantship. Note also articles on Junior doctors (which is UK-centric) and Registrars (more of a disambiguation page). The training in UK has just undergone a radical change this year (as a fully qualifed GP, I'm a little hazy on the specifics), so would be timely to rework these pages.[reply]

Comments

  • I agree that it is US-centric. UK input would be nice. I also agree that it should be merged with Medical residency. Cybergoth 20:11, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest a UK page which redirects to medical residency section titled "Other countries". With the existnece of the new foundation years and then House officership, I would also be tempted to start a completely new section on that instead of merging. PhatRita 15:21, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Irritability edit

Nominated on 15:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC); if not selected by October 9th, 2005, needs 2 votes to remain in consideration.

Due to an AFD on a webcomic at Irritability, it has now been moved to Irritability (webcomic) to take into account that most pages linked to it as a medical condition/symptom. Right now it's a substub. Even if it's not nominated, if people could just add to it, that would be great.

Support

  1. Hahnchen 15:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Temporomandibular joint disorder edit

Nominated on 00:21, 11 October 2005 (UTC);if not selected by 17 October 2005, needs 2 votes to remain in consideration.

This is a pretty common disorder. I personally have the disorder and would like to see the article cleaned up and expanded.

Support

  1. Newbie222 00:21, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

The article is certainly based on North American institutions and practices. Is there a UK or European or South American equivalent of residency? Is it called the same thing? If the same term residency is not used in UK or Europe, then I would vote for making it clearer in the article that this is a North American institution and would simply mention and link at the end of the article to articles on UK or other equivalents. If the term residency is also used in UK and Europe then the article should be expanded to include those types of residency. However I would vote for separate sections of the article rather than the unpleasant alternation of conflicting assertions in the same paragraphs. alteripse 22:34, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Biology stubs edit

Nominated at 21:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC); if not selected by date in seven days, needs 2 votes to remain in consideration.

There are many medicine stubs mislabled as biology stubs. It would be nice if the Collaboration would assist in relabeling and moving them to Category:Medicine stubs.

Support

  1. Edwardian 21:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I'm not certain if the nature of the cleanup makes this a valid nomination. Edwardian 21:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and moved a few hundred out anyway. Anything that I recognized as belonging in cellbio, med, biologist, biochem, or neuroscience I moved. InvictaHOG 04:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Veterinary medicine edit

Nominated at 01:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC); if not selected by December 22, needs 2 votes to remain in consideration.

Until recently, I was a veterinary assistant and stumbled across this article on a whim. The only section is on education -- what's there looks nice, but is woefully inadequate. I'd be glad to copyedit and whatnot, but I don't really have any ability to write on this topic. I thought I'd nominate it because I've noticed this CotW has produced some good articles at PR and FAC. I don't know if this is an appropriate nomination, since it isn't human medicine, but still... it needs work.

Support

  1. Tuf-Kat 01:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Comments

  1. Wow, I wish I knew anything about veterinary medicine and could help...InvictaHOG 00:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Congestive heart failure edit

Nominated on 11:00, 20 October 2005 (UTC); if not selected by November 17, 2005, needs 4 votes to remain in consideration.

A short and underworked page, especially given the prevalence of this condition, the complicated and interesting pathophysiology, and the many ongoing developments (e.g. does nesiritide help or does it kill?)

Support

  1. Nominator. Declaration of bias: likes giving large doses of furosemide. JFW | T@lk 11:00, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:16, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments That's funny, I looked at this page last night and grimaced. First of all, CHF and heart failure are linked. Second of all, nothing is there. I certainly think that it needs to be done, but I dread doing another huge topic so soon after pneumonia. The pathophysiology will be messy as well. And nesiritide kills!!! InvictaHOG 13:01, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Antihypertensive edit

Nominated on 23:13, 25 October 2005 (UTC); if not selected by November 22, 2005, needs 4 votes to remain in consideration.

Not much more than a list of hypertensives now. Needs some good background info and information about each class of drugs mentioned.

Support

  1. WS 23:13, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:16, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Screening (medicine) edit

Nominated at 06:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC); if not selected by 31 January 2006, needs 6 votes to remain in consideration.

Screening is an important link for many medical articles, as discussed on Talk:Prostate cancer. As genetic screening becomes more widely available, the public needs a NPOV resource to help everyone better understand the pros and cons of screening. So far we have only a stub. This will be a bit different than collaborating on a specific disease article, but should be interesting!

Support

  1. Rewster 06:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. InvictaHOG 09:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. JFW | T@lk 12:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. WS 10:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. David Ruben Talk 14:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Also need transfer some of discussion in Prostate cancer about PSA's faillings across to PSA article itself David Ruben Talk 14:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for beating you to this! Didn't see it was a COTW until now. It still definitely needs some work, I've expanded it in a pretty lop-sided way, so there's plenty of room for improvement! Tristanb 08:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obesity and overweight edit

Nominated at 12:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC); if not selected by 26 January 2006, needs 4 votes to remain in consideration.

This subject attracts immense attention (just look at the vandalism), and I've been editing it for a little while to improve its evidence base and make it a useful resource for all those people confused about their weight. The science is still imperfect, and I'm still not thrilled about the sections that deal with cultural and social factors. The treatment section covers ACP guidelines but is still thin on the evidence for dieting. JFW | T@lk 12:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. JFW | T@lk 12:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Bob 18:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   CrnaGora (Talk | Contribs | E-mail) 00:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease edit

Nominated 29 January 2006 (UTC); if not selected by 5 February 2006, needs 4 votes to remain in consideration.

An immensely common chronic condition, still undertreated and associated with marked loss of life expectancy, quality of life and frequently mistaken for asthma. The present article is practically rubbish. JFW | T@lk 00:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Practically rubbish"?... Okay, it needs a lot of work. Axl 08:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. JFW | T@lk 00:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Axl 08:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ENCEPHALON 01:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Bob 18:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5.   CrnaGora (Talk | Contribs | E-mail) 00:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Veterinary medicine edit

Nominated on 15 March 2006 (UTC); if not selected by March 22, needs 2 votes to remain in consideration.

I hope no one will scoff at this nomination. Have a look at the article and see for yourselves that it could easily be improved. This is human medicine's little sister, and should not be left in this sorry state!

Support
  1. Samsara (talk • contribs) 20:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments


Category:Cardiac electrophysiology edit

Nominated at 19:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC); if not selected by 2006-4-18, needs 2 votes to remain in consideration.

The whole category needs a systematic reorganization. There's a lot of content duplicated between different pages, inadequate linking, and a lot of opportunities to add and improve content.

Support

  1. JVinocur 19:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. JFW | T@lk 22:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. M3rkury 03:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • A whole category! Now that's being bold! JFW | T@lk 22:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isn't there some place better that we could nominate categories for cleanup? They don't really seem like they can be completed in a week. Museumfreak 01:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Public Health edit

Nominated at 14:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC); if not selected by 3 June 2006, needs 2 votes to remain in consideration.

The entire category needs improvement, and I'm hoping that working on this article as a CoTW could lead to more interest in the area. The article is good, particularly the historical section (although I'm sure the people at the HistSci project could improve it), but it needs copyediting and it needs to have the major subfields defined and linked to. Note that I withdrew my nomination for a more specific PH article in favor of this one.

Support

  1. Museumfreak 14:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. JFW | T@lk 22:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments


Andrew Taylor Still edit

Nominated at 22:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC); if not selected by July 27, 2006, needs 2 votes to remain in consideration.

He started osteopathic medicine, it's surprising that an article on someone of such importance is little more than a stub.

Support

  1. PiMaster3 22:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. apers0n 14:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Lung cancer edit

Nominated at 11:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC); if not selected by 22 september 2006, needs 2 votes to remain in consideration.

One of the most common types of cancer, with the highest mortality rate. Could be much better than it is now.

Support

  1. WS 11:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

If this is selected, please do edit sensitively! All the smoking-related articles have been subject to some pretty fierce edit wars in the (recent) past, and we're just getting to the point where the absurd anti-smoking blogs are no longer cited as references, where the articles are reasonably balanced, and where both pro- and anti-smoking claims are properly referenced. I am sure you will all bear this in mind, but I'd hate to see this undone because some of the prosmoking lobby get riled into re-posting stuff they've currently tacitly agreed shouldn't be there by way of retaliation! Thanks. Nmg20 00:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warts edit

Nominated at 11:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC); if not selected by 30 Sept 2006, needs 2 votes to remain in consideration.

Common things are common. What is known about viral warts on hands and feet? The article page is currently tagged for a cleanup.

Support

  1. Snowman 11:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Lyme disease edit

Nominated at 17:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC); if not selected by 09 October 2006 (UTC), needs 2 votes to remain in consideration.

The article could even be featured, has a peer review now, but needs a lot of work.

Support

  1. NCurse work 17:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments


Vaccinology edit

Nominated at 12:54, 3 August 2006 (ACST); if not selected by 10 august 2006, needs 2 votes to remain in consideration.

This is a very lonely stub that would no doubt be far better populated in a paper-based encyclopaedia.

Support

  1. — Donama 03:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ZayZayEM 07:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Urinary incontinence edit

Nominated at 13:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC); if not selected by 17 august 2006, needs 2 votes to remain in consideration.

Quite a mess right now, could use some improvement.

Support

  1. WS 13:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Rj101 03:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  1. Extremely common issue/major medical topic that deserves appropriate attention. -Rj101 03:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Lassa fever edit

Nominated at 16:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC); if not selected by August 27 2006, needs 2 votes to remain in consideration.

Important viral disease, article is rather stubby but with good prospects for expansion.

Support

  1. Kpjas 16:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. NCurse   work 15:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cushing's Syndrome edit

Nominated at 05:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC); if not selected by November 19, 2006, needs 2 votes to remain in consideration.

It has a lot of work ahead of it. However, it is an important disease and needs more information. I think it would benifit from a collaboration.

Support

  1. Je at uwo 05:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Medical prescription edit

Nominated at 03:27, Tuesday, May 7, 2024 (UTC)

It's a very important topic, and the article's only in so-so shape. Most of the information is heavily skewed towards the US. It includes a couple of screenfuls of original source materials (US laws and regulations) as "exhibits". Ideally, MCOTW could be timed for an inter-project collaboration with our friends at the Pharmacology project.

Support

  1. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • This would be pointless without involvement from WP:PHARM. JFW | T@lk 12:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Subcutaneous emphysema edit

Nominated at 03:27, Tuesday, May 7, 2024 (UTC)

Recent GA, failed FA article. Needs just one or two weeks of solid improvement of references (as most are case reviews and not review articles). Jargon needs explaining, other than that, it's pretty well rounded. I know it's not a desperate case but I think it's worth doing.

Support

  1. Regards, CycloneNimrodTalk? 08:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • I'm not sure if it's references that are needed. JFW | T@lk 12:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In what way exactly? Something else needs doing or the references are okay? I can't sense sarcasm on the internet, it's a shame! :) Regards, CycloneNimrodTalk? 22:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The references seem fine. I can't see evidence of it failing FA. I understand your point about references, and support the need for reviews over case series, but in this particular instance no such reviews may be available. This URL will take you to all papers with SCE as a MAJR heading. Of the 35 review articles, none are of the comprehensive type that we so prefer for WP:MEDRS. JFW | T@lk 11:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pancreas edit

Nominated at 09:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC).

A definite eyesore by Wikipedia standards. Needs a lot of additional info...blood supply, lymphatics, biochemistry and physiology of release of hormones, integration with process of digestion. A very important topic that deserves a better article

Support

  1. —KetanPanchaltaLK 09:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments.

  • It's not in that bad a state... JFW | T@lk 12:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, I'd never really gone through articles of any major organs, so after your above comment, I skimmed through the following articles, and here is my frank and honest opinion:
      • Stomach: In state worsecomparable/slightly better (this correction is because I saw that layers of stomach are discussed but in a tabular form) than pancreas. Mainly, the physiology of digestion in stomach is lacking, which is somewhat discussed in the article in digestion. I think an average user is very likely to search this article. So, it also deserves a better article.
      • Spleen: Also needs improvement, particularly, how it functions. But, may be a less "notable" organ than pancreas.
      • Bone marrow: Quite better than the pancreas article, may be a bit more of anatomy could have been discussed.
      • Thyroid: An article, I'd consider of comparable importance and notability as pancreas. This is an excellent article, comprehensive, and may be used as a model for other organ-related articles in anatomy. May be the histology section could do with being descriptive rather than tabular.
      • Guidelines for anatomy articles: Well, the page says, it's in a state of development, but no mention has been made of what all section-headings are required in an organ-related article.
    • So, there are two possibilities. One, that the pancreas articles is actually quite alright given the state of articles on (comparably) important and notable organs, and it's just that my expectations of them are pretty high. Two, that all/most of the organ-related articles are in a bad state, which would mean that somehow (which mainly includes prodding WikiProject Anatomy to take the initiative), all the organ-related articles need improvement. But, I believe second possibility to be "more true". Cases in point would be:
      • Transcription
      • Penicillin
      • Heart murmur, which are all much better (informative, organized, comprehensive) articles in their own right, and more so when one considers the other articles they provide links to. Also, it is such articles that had molded my ideas on "overall standard of Wikipidea articles".
    • So, may be we (medicine and anatomy Wikiprojects) have to decide what quality of articles do we wish for the major organs of the body.
—KetanPanchaltaLK 13:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Osteochondritis Dissecans edit

Nominated at 01:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC).

A relatively rare disease, this article is currently undergoing FAC and could use help with addressing the issue of technical words and their use within the article.

Support

  1. FoodPuma 01:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments


Alcohol and cancer edit

Nominated at 00:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC).

Article is a mess, particularly with overuse of direct quotes. I have removed the worst of the direct quoting but it is still a mess. A week's worth of work and I think that we could get the article up to a B class article. It has been a mess for over 2 years now.

Support

  1. Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments.

Physician edit

Nominated at 14:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC).

rated of top importance but currently only as B quality; gets lots of vandalism but not a lot of real work, and could do with a few more physicians making contributions

Support

  1. DavidB 14:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments

Spontaneous cerebrospinal fluid leak edit

Nominated at 03:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC).

The article has been undergoing a very thorough peer review and has had 2 GA reviews. The most recent feeling is that is up to GA status and may even be a candidate for FA. Respectfully requesting collaboration in order to fill in any missing pieces. Thanks!

Support

  1. Basket of Puppies 03:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Collaboration_of_the_Week/Expired_nominations&oldid=1142534784"