Talk:Dracunculiasis/GA2

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 16:07, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• "was widespread, it would often affect" -> "was widespread, it often affected"
  • Done.
• "moniker" -> "name" or perhaps "descriptor". Felt too casual really.
  • Done.
• " larvicide temephos" - perhaps gloss this "the organophosphate larvicide temephos". I don't know if we should get into a discussion of the wisdom of adding organophosphates to drinking water (...Organophosphate poisoning...), but no Western country would want to see anything like that in their water supply, so the recommendation is a bit startling. Though [19] says it's safer than Chlorine, so there. Maybe [18] is redundant for this claim.
  • My gentle preference would be not to. The textbook sources I use don't describe it in this way -- possibly because they don't want to surface negative associations, though possibly they just don't think it's important. "with a larvicide known as temephos (ABATE)" (Parasitic Diseases), "with the safe larvicide temephos" (Atlas of Pediatrics), "with the larvicide Temephos" (Galan-Puchades, 2019 - not a textbook, but I accidentally opened the PDF at the same time). Ditto the broad public-facing sources: "by using the larvicide temephos" (WHO), "using the approved chemical temephos" (CDC).
    • For the record, I hear the soft courtly tones of euphemism here, and I think I know why.
• "there could be as many as 48 million cases" in 1947: perhaps "could have been", or something of that sort. Fascinating paper by Stoll, by the way. (Loved the 3.3 billion prediction for world population in 2000...)
  • Done. Glad you liked it. Some sources state Stoll's estimate as gospel truth, so I was quite tickled when I found the actual paper.
• The large table in 'Eradication' goes to great length to say what the small graph says more clearly; I doubt we need annual data by country in an article of this kind, and the assembling of the data in this manner is a bit uncomfortable, as is the set of overlapping maps. The table's date range is in any case much too little (far too recent) to match the remarkable graph. I suggest the table should go. Better, if detailed illustration is thought necessary, would be a map from the 2011 dataset [45] and a matching map from the 2023 dataset [57] with countries coloured by their data values (or the numbers could be overlaid on the maps).
  • Agreed, removed. I do have space for another illustration or two. If I were to find/generate a visual aid for any part of the article, would the map you reference above be your first choice? If you think there's another illustration that would be better, happy to work on that instead.
    • I think the map would probably be best.
• Given that there is a "main" article Eradication of dracunculiasis, this section should be a short summary of that article (resembling its concise lead section) rather than an extensive treatise. No point keeping a dog and barking yourself, to quote an old proverb.
  • Amazing proverb, hadn't heard that before. I'm inclined to disagree. I think the somewhat large eradication section is due here. This is a disease that affects about as few people as any. It's primarily written about because of the success of the eradication effort.
    • So it's the exceptionally long, exceptionally important "main" article summary. Don't make a habit of it!

• "paratenic host" needs a brief explanatory gloss. Or just call it a "transport host" or "secondary host" for the sake of general readers: the terms are in common use and don't involve rare Greek etymologies ("to stretch out beside", for some reason, don't ask).
  • Sure, went with "transport host" which hopefully at least gets the right idea across to the uninitiated.
• "The only other reptile affected is the snapping turtle" - suggest "reptiles" and "snapping turtles" as 2 species are mentioned.
  • Done.
• The category "Parasitic infestations, stings, and bites of the skin" seems to be largely for insect bites and other such; Guinea worm is a penetrating, internal worm so the category isn't a good match for this article. Actually the category is a total mess and probably needs reworking into some better-defined entities, but that's not our problem.
  • Removed.

Images

• The images, all from Commons, appear to be correctly licensed. All are clearly relevant to the article.

Sources

• Spot-checks worked out fine.

Summary

This is a well-written and compact article on a sad but curious topic. I hope to see it as a GA very soon. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:50, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking the time to review. I hope I'll have a moment to get to this tomorrow, but if not I'll be held up until early next week. So if there's a few days silence from me, just know your comments are appreciated and soon to be acted upon. Ajpolino (talk) 19:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Ajpolino ?

• Thanks for the ping. Did the easy ones this morning, will get to the rest by the end of the weekend at the latest. Pardon my slow replies. Ajpolino (talk) 12:14, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
  • "at the lastest" Apologies. Man plans; god laughs. And all that. All done. There are two items I disagreed with and noted reasons above. If you feel the disagreement spots are worth pursuing, we can seek other opinions. I'm not sure the talk page gets much traffic, but we can certainly try posting there or perhaps WT:MED. Ajpolino (talk) 01:17, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.