| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am attempting to get the article to good article status but it still may need a bit more work. The article recently failed GAN due to time limitations by the reviewer and in the meanwhile I need feedback on how to better the article further. The last major upgrade to the article has been the near complete replacement (as much as possible) with secondary review sources, considerable revisions to the length of the article, removal of unnecessary/redundant information, etc. I think the article is close to GA status but I could use some feedback.
Thanks, TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:54, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- Comments
- Caution, I'll be pointing out some weighty concerns I have about the article. =) Thanks in advance for your patience.
- "This disease has a profound impact on quality of life". Is this always true? I suspect not, though it suggests so.
- Isn't it described as a diagnosis of exclusion? We should link that in the WP:LEAD, I think
- "can be quite disabling" should be "can be disabling"
- The article links to a 2001 definition. Can't we get an updated source per WP:MEDDATE?
- Why would "The Interstitial Cystitis Survival Guide: Your Guide to the Latest Treatment Options and Coping Strategies" be a reliable source/WP:MEDRS? It doesn't have publishing/author info, so it is difficult for readers to assess its reliability. Using[1] after having a google books link can generate a complete citation.
- "The condition is officially recognized as a disability" sounds a bit like we're reaching for notability. In other words, it sounds like the article is trying to convince readers of its importance, instead of plainly citing facts. I have seen no other medical article on Wikipedia, for example, include this type of tid-bit in the lead. Combined with "has a profound impact on quality of life" I'm concerned about about WP:NPOV issues. I think this article is likely violating our neutrality guideline. I ask to hear an reply on this point, see some edits, or I'll plan on tagging this article as such later.
- Why are we still citing a website[2] for information about the disease instead of standard peer-reviewed medical journals, etc.? Consider citing the website for an accessible lay summary within that {{cite journal}} template if it is due to journal articles being paywalled?
- I hope these limited comments have been helpful. Thanks for putting the article up for peer review. Biosthmors (talk) 22:26, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Biosthmors, so far I have fixed nearly all of these problems now to address your comments. The "always" part for quality of life is fixed, the quite disabling vs. disabling bit is fixed, the full citation for the book reference Survival Guide is complete (thank you for that citation generator), and I'm going to work on updating the definition now. Regarding the condition officially being recognized as a disability, I'm not quite clear on why that would violate NPOV or sound like it's reaching for notability if it's true. The sources cited for that statement seem reasonable to me. Can you clarify what the issue with this statement is exactly? The same for why citing the Harvard website is not desirable. Is it simply that citing a peer-reviewed medical journal for information about the disease is preferable? I'm just wondering because the majority of the article does cite peer-reviewed medical journals but if we're attempting to get as much as possible cited that way, then that will make sense. I'll await your reply for those two parts and update the definition to the best of my ability in the meanwhile (do we care if the definition comes from a primary paper or review? I'm currently assuming we want something from a review article for the updated definition). Thanks for the comments and I absolutely welcome more feedback to help get this article to where it should be. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 01:50, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
- Definition updated with 2012 peer-reviewed medical journal review.TylerDurden8823 (talk) 02:13, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, yes it is preferable. And I don't see why it should be mentioned in the WP:LEAD. I saw it (together with the other issues) as a way to emphasize to the reader how important the disease was. The medical facts should speak for themselves, without bringing in some other opinion from a government agency. Thanks for your patience! Biosthmors (talk) 16:52, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- Definition updated with 2012 peer-reviewed medical journal review.TylerDurden8823 (talk) 02:13, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Biosthmors, so far I have fixed nearly all of these problems now to address your comments. The "always" part for quality of life is fixed, the quite disabling vs. disabling bit is fixed, the full citation for the book reference Survival Guide is complete (thank you for that citation generator), and I'm going to work on updating the definition now. Regarding the condition officially being recognized as a disability, I'm not quite clear on why that would violate NPOV or sound like it's reaching for notability if it's true. The sources cited for that statement seem reasonable to me. Can you clarify what the issue with this statement is exactly? The same for why citing the Harvard website is not desirable. Is it simply that citing a peer-reviewed medical journal for information about the disease is preferable? I'm just wondering because the majority of the article does cite peer-reviewed medical journals but if we're attempting to get as much as possible cited that way, then that will make sense. I'll await your reply for those two parts and update the definition to the best of my ability in the meanwhile (do we care if the definition comes from a primary paper or review? I'm currently assuming we want something from a review article for the updated definition). Thanks for the comments and I absolutely welcome more feedback to help get this article to where it should be. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 01:50, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
- Comments by User:Quasihuman
I have one major concern which I have outlined below, if this can be addressed, I will weigh in with more comments.
- Some of the text seems to be closely paraphrased from a number of sources, in some of these, the possible source may have copied from us, but in other cases, that seems unlikely:
- Our article:"For the most part, people with interstitial cystitis will either have lots of pain and very little frequency or they will have lots of frequency and very little pain."
- Other source:"...for the most part, people with interstitial cystitis will either have lots of pain and very little frequency or they'll have lots of frequency and very little pain."
- Our article: "Far more patients may experience a very mild form of IC/PBS, in which they have no visible wounds in their bladder, yet struggle with symptoms of pain, frequency, and/or urgency."
- Other source:"Far more patients may experience a very mild form of IC, in which they have no visible wounds in their bladder, yet struggle with symptoms of frequency, urgency and/or pain."
These are the results of a brief check, there may be more in the article or these may be the only ones. If the other sources did not copy from us, I would advise you to check through the article for similar concerns, and rephrase sections which have been closely paraphrased. I can help by identifying text where there's a concern. By the way, I checked through the history, and in both cases, these issues were there before Tyler started editing the article. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 20:25, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks Quasi, I just rephrased that sentence you brought up (you were right, it was too similar to the article and I'm not even sure if the article qualifies as a reliable source or belongs in the article) and I reworded the sentence and I think it's better. I think I do remember someone having brought up this issue but I thought it had been addressed a while ago. If there any specific areas for me to look at let me know and I'll take care of it. Thanks! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 20:35, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
- Just an update, I've been searching through the history to find the diffs of when the two examples I cited were inserted, and it turns out that they were made by separate editors years apart. The second example was added here. I'm investigating the editor who added the first example, and I don't think it would be fair to link the diff until I'm sure about their other contributions to the article. Could someone check if the other content added in the diff above is still in the article, and check if it's problematic? I'm out of editing time tonight, and won't be back on 'till tomorrow evening. Thanks, Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 23:59, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the update. Sounds like a "job" for Tyler! ;-) You could also try using WikiTrust as I've seen it successfully (and impressively) demonstrated, but I haven't been able to get the option to work for me as of late. I'll post at WP:VPT (now at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#WikiTrust). Biosthmors (talk) 00:20, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Quasi, so, the vast majority of what that user put on the page in that diff you linked to earlier is not there. The remaining residual stuff does not seem problematic to me, I did rephrase some of what that author put there and just added a systematic review to support an unverified statement but overall, I think the residual contributions from that user are okay, there isn't much left as it is from what I can see.TylerDurden8823 (talk) 02:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the update. Sounds like a "job" for Tyler! ;-) You could also try using WikiTrust as I've seen it successfully (and impressively) demonstrated, but I haven't been able to get the option to work for me as of late. I'll post at WP:VPT (now at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#WikiTrust). Biosthmors (talk) 00:20, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- Just an update, I've been searching through the history to find the diffs of when the two examples I cited were inserted, and it turns out that they were made by separate editors years apart. The second example was added here. I'm investigating the editor who added the first example, and I don't think it would be fair to link the diff until I'm sure about their other contributions to the article. Could someone check if the other content added in the diff above is still in the article, and check if it's problematic? I'm out of editing time tonight, and won't be back on 'till tomorrow evening. Thanks, Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 23:59, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the work Tyler, on further investigation, it turns out that http://www.grpelvicmed.com/patientsupport/gynconditions/interstitialcystitis/ , which was the supposed source of the content in the second example, plagiarized much of their content from us. I should have looked more closely at it in the first place, had I done so, I would have seen that they copied the text, inline refs and all, from us. I'll add the site to Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks/Ghi for future reference, and because a private company are using our content without attributing it to us. I believe that the other example is a one-off, so I think the article is clean. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 19:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me Quasi, thanks. If there are other things the article could benefit from or areas that require further work, please let me know. Also, Biosthmors, can you clarify those two points discussed earlier that I was confused about? I'd like to resolve those last two points because then I will have addressed everything brought up so far. Thanks! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 20:08, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Here are some further comments, I'll add more in the next few days when I have time Feel free to ignore some or all of these if you think I'm wrong.
- Per WP:MOSINTRO, the lead needs to be an accessible overview. Most of the lead seems accessible, but it would benefit from nocturia and diagnosis of exclusion being explained in an accessible way. If I were an average reader, I would have to click through the links to find out what they mean. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 23:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- In the lead:"The condition is officially recognized as a disability" - my concern with this is different to Biosthmors. When I read this, I ask myself: Where?, the US, Europe, the UK? when I look into the article I find reference only to the US. I suggest appending "in the United States" to the end. See WP:WORLDVIEW. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 23:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- There seems to be a lot of bulleted lists in the article, I especially note the one-member list at the bottom of #Prognosis as inappropriate. I will leave it to your discretion whether the other lists are appropriate per WP:PROSE. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 23:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
- Good comments Quasi, thank you. I'm addressing them now and please do keep them coming. Fixing all of these weak spots in the article is simply making it a better article. I've already fixed the first two things you brought up most recently about where it is considered a disability and the more accessible overview bit. Just fixed the bulleted lists in the prognosis section. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 00:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
- More comments from Biosthmors
- Fix instances of IC/PBS.
- Use en dash between number ranges instead of a hypen. Biosthmors (talk) 17:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- "While a small 1987 study showed that 11 of 14 (78%) patients had a >50% reduction in pain,[42] a 1993 study found no beneficial effect.[43]" is inappropriate.