Talk:Melioidosis/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ajpolino (talk · contribs) 17:32, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Hey there, I'll get through this as quickly as possible. Might take me a few days. Sorry to see you've had to wait so long for a GA review (again) Ajpolino (talk) 17:36, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for taking your time to review this article. Cerevisae (talk) 21:07, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

@Cerevisae: Sorry for the break; I'm back at it! Ajpolino (talk) 17:52, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

No problem. :-) Cerevisae (talk) 23:43, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

• In the "Signs and symptoms > Subacute" subsection, it seems like the discussion of sero-positivity rates may be better placed in the "Epidemiology" or "Diagnosis" section. Perhaps you could replace the Subacute subsection with a sentence or two introducing this "Signs and sypmtoms" section?  Done Moved to epidemiology subsection.
• The first two sentences of the "Acute" subsection are confusing. Perhaps you can reword in some way?  Done removed the second sentence. Kept the first one.
• In general, this is written like a medical text. I'll try to go through and copyedit for clarity. Please take a look and make sure I'm not changing the intended meaning anywhere!
• There are a few instances of jargon that I think most readers wouldn't understand. Could you clarify with a wikilink or a few words? Looking at "boggy prostate", "increased T2 signal", and "protean" so far...  Done

• After a quick Google I changed "boggy prostate" to inflamed prostate, and "protean" to "varied". Not sure if those are the intended meanings, but that's the best I could tell from quickly Googling it.

• The sentence about "L’affaire du jardin des plantes" seems fairly random where it's currently placed. Maybe it could either go in History, or be worded in a way where it emphasizes what animals can be infected (since that's what the sentences around it are about)?  Done. Brought to "History" section.
• Maybe the last paragraph of the transmission section would be better placed in the Epidemiology section. It seems to be about populations at risk rather than about transmission... Done
• The first few paragraphs of the Pathogenesis section seemed scattered. I couldn't figure out how to suggest a fix, so I heavily edited them to try to make them flow more logically. Can you check to make sure I didn't introduce any errors? Also feel free to change anything you disagree with or prefer another way. Done
• Can you rearrange the Diagnosis section so it flows better? The first paragraph seems awkwardly placed; maybe it could go later. Done
• I'm not accustomed to reading antibody titers. Is there some unit to 1:40 and 1:160? What is that a ratio of?  Done

1. B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

• A few times you mention that laboratory workers should use biosafety level 3 conditions when working with B. pseudomallei. In the diagnosis section you cite BMBL 5th ed. It looks like their discussion of biosafety when working with B. pseudomallei is a bit more nuanced (page 129-130) with some work safe for carrying out at BSL-2, while large-scale production and work that could result in aerosols left for BSL-3 laboratory precautions. Could you either reflect that in the text (or you may choose to pare down discussion of the biosafety level in the text; as far as I know the BMBL recommendations are US-specific and suggested biosafety levels sometimes vary from country to country). Done Mentioned more specifically the BSL-2 and BSL-3 conditions are for the US.
• The Wiersinga, et al review you cite frequently also mentions MALDI-TOF as an increasingly common method for diagnosis; perhaps you could add a sentence on that? Done
• That same review seems to suggest serology testing is bad because it has poor sensitivity (some melioidosis patients never develop antibodies) and specificity (many people with antibodies don't have melioidosis). You currently just mention the reason for poor specficity. Could you add a few words on why the sensitivity is bad? Done
• Regarding the sentence in diagnosis "Immunofluorescence microscopy approaches 100% in specificity..." It looks like in the source they're referring only to detection of bacteria directly from clinical specimens. It would be nice if you could make that clear in the text. It's somewhat unclear as currently written. Done
• In the epidemiology section you have Brunei listed as both an endemic country and a place where "Multiple cases have been described". Maybe pick whichever list you think it belongs in? Done
• Something weird seems to have happened in the epidemiology section at "in the world (about 464 (25-20,850 CFU/g soil)". Could you fix it? Done
• One of the references is to "Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Melioidosis. 2012. Accessed February 27, 2017". I assume that's supposed to be a website since it has the access date? Could you either fill out the ref with URL or remove it if you don't need it to cite any of your info? Done Removed the website

1. C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

2. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

3. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

4. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

5. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

• Any chance you could find some relevant free images?

1. B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

2. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

• Excellent work getting this article up to where it is. Some images would be nice, but it's not worth holding up this review over. This article is a clear pass of the GA criteria. Happy editing!Ajpolino (talk) 22:30, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! :-) Cerevisae (talk) 04:50, 17 September 2019 (UTC)