Resolved issues.

Introduction

The introduction to this page is... not so good. Not so good at all. Most of the information should be moved or rewritten into a single paragraph, maybe two. I'd do it, but I don't know much about gluten sensitivity, and I don't want to mess anything up. There's plenty of information, but it really needs to be organized differently in the introduction there.

You're right, it's not. Certainly it had to much information. Moved some of the information to subsections and moved still others off the page. I don't want intro to be too scattered.

The page has been partially subdivided

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluten-sensitive_enteropathy_associated_conditions

Splitting the page

There has been a removal of a large segment of infomration to a new page, with excessively long title, the move was reverted, so that editing the page can continue, and so the discussion of best how to split the page can be discussed here, first.Pdeitiker 17:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the page should be split because it is currently 90kb long. Wikipedia recommends that articles stay around 30kb long so this article is currently three times the recommended length. As a casual reader brought here by the random article button I found the detail so overwhelming I did not understand the basic topic. You left a message on my talk page saying that this article is in a stage of having more information added but at this point what the article really needs is to be edited so that all but the most important 30kb or so are removed and placed on subpages, for the benefit of readers who want a general intro to the topic. (See Wikipedia:Summary style.) I have no preference for subpage names, but I don't think being long is a major concern. (They may have to be long, considering that you don't want to include abbreviations in the name of subheaders, and the disease names are really long already.) Probably what would be best is to break it out into subpages, make sure what is on the main page is accurate, and then proceed to add more details to subpages instead of the main article. By the way, if you want to let people know that you are actively editing the article (on a minute-by-minute or hour-by-hour basis), use the {{Underconstruction}} template. Most editors won't (and shouldn't) assume that they can't edit an article simply because there was an edit 20 minutes prior. Calliopejen1 17:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When you put the header at the top, might be a good idea to wait and see if it opens up a discussion before overtly splitting, IMHO. And the page is only a few days old, i.e. it is under construction. One does not create a 90kb page from scratch with 121 references in an hour, right.

The page is long, I agree. The function of the page is to provide a comparions of secondary associations that occur from three different but similar diseases. It is not randomly targeted but targeted toward an audiance that has some understanding, bits of the puzzle understanding. The page is designed to allow them to compare various associations.

An example might be a patient who has rheumatoid arthritis and gluten senstivity, that patient may have been DQ typed and biopsied. The result of the test may be DQ- and biopsy- but the patient may still beleive that he/she is GSE, however gluten sensitivity via gluten allergy may explain the RA better than GSE. Where-as there is no public explanation available to these patients.

So that as the page is cut up it needs to preserve that function while giving better identity to the child pages. Also the child pages should have appropriate titles.

For Example:

Gluten-sensitive enteropathy associated diseases.
Gluten-sensitive enteropathy associations.

A list in the GS page can be provide that links conditions to the second page as a whole and list items directly to subsections.

There can be a separate page for gluten senstivie idiopathic neuropathies, this can be linked by Idiopathic gluten sensitive subsection neuropathies.

IOW your idea of splitting is not bad, but it needs to be a bit thought out, first.Pdeitiker 18:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]