Talk:Melvin Ramsay

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Melvin Ramsay/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Maxim Masiutin (talk · contribs) 14:32, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Lead

The lead should better cover the works and the heritage of Ramsay. Please consider expanding with better emphasis on works and heritage, especially what has become known and is now known as "Ramsay definition", see [[1]] and as an alternative term "Ramsay's definition" [[2]].

Please consider the lead that would look something like the following. This is just an example. If you don't like to mention particular associations or grants, try to highlight other contributions.

<!-- life -->
Andrew Melvin Ramsay (1901–1990) was a British physician known for his research and advocacy on myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME), a neurological disease. Born in Preston, Lancashire, Ramsay completed his Master of Arts degree from the University of Aberdeen in 1923 and his undergraduate medical degree there in 1926. He practiced medicine in South Africa from 1926 to 1935. Ramsay worked as a consultant at the Royal Free Hospital in London during a mysterious 1955 disease outbreak. He studied the disease and similar outbreaks elsewhere. His work extended to educating nurses and medical undergraduates on the practical aspects of managing infectious diseases.

<!-- heritage -->
Ramsay is remembered for his significant contributions to the understanding of ME. In 1986, he published the first case definition of ME, often called the "Ramsay definition". He co-founded the ME Association, a charity supporting individuals with ME. The ME Association funds its research through the Ramsay Research Fund (RRF), named in honor of Ramsay. Additionally, the Ramsay Research Grant Program, an initiative by the Solve M.E., a US non-profit organization, supports research into the underlying causes of ME/CFS and Long COVID.

Criteria

1. Well-written:
   1. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; I checked with WPClener's linter and there were no errors on spelling, and I also read the article and didn't find any error on grammar except one grammar error that I fixed ("has became" -> "has become"); the article used British spelling of English without explicitly defined so, therefore I added the {{Use British English}} template to specify that, and
   2. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation; all the citation use the same (consistent) style; still, the lead, in my opinion, has room for improvement as I mentioned in the #Lead section of my review, still, these objections alone should not prevent from the article from passing the set of requirements specified as the GA criteria, the lead can be improved later, should the nominating editor or other editors decide so
2. Verifiable with no original research:
   1. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; the sources are very good and trustworthy;
   2. reliable sources are cited inline;
   3. it contains no original research; and
   4. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism; at least I didn't find any violation using the Earwig's Copyvio Detector online tool and the Copyleaks online service
3. Broad in its coverage:
   1. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; still, it could have described legacy and contributions better, such as a US-based organization providing grants in his name; although the article describes the "Ramsay definition" but does not explicitly name it as such, still, these issues are insignificant and can be addressed later; these minor omissions alone don't disqualify the article from being GA-compliant, and
   2. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
   1. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
   2. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Overall review result: pass.

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.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 17:32, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Melvin Ramsay published the first case definition of myalgic encephalomyelitis? Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7391812/
  • ALT1: ... that physician Melvin Ramsay refuted the suggestion – that based on its higher prevalence among women – myalgic encephalomyelitis was a form of mass hysteria? Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK274235/pdf/Bookshelf_NBK274235.pdf (p28)
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Bogor City Regional House of Representatives
  • Comment: The second hook is a bit provocative. The suggestion was not only based on quite overt sexism, but also on the fact that tests at the time couldn't detect physiological abnormalities. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 10:50, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Improved to Good Article status by Femke (talk). Self-nominated at 10:50, 25 November 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Melvin Ramsay; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• Starting review. Updates to follow. Ktin (talk) 12:49, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Article meets eligibility criteria. Was nominated 5 days after being promoted to GA. No concerns with tone, sourcing, nor with copyvio.

Regarding ALT0 -- the hook seems to be sourced to this text -- Since the first recognition of ME/CFS in an outbreak in Los Angeles 1934, the illness has undergone various changes in terminology and case definition [17]. Dr. G. Beard (1839–1883) first disclosed the illness in his book and introduced the term 'neurasthenia' in the 1860 s [18]. Later, the features of neurologic symptoms during the U.K. outbreaks led to naming the illness ‘benign ME’ [19], then Ramsay created the 'ME' case definition in 1986. I am assuming the term "case definition" means something specific here because this does not seem to be attributed to Dr G. Beard. With that, I am comfortable approving ALT0.

Re: ALT1. The sourcing seems to be tied to this text In 1970, two psychiatrists in the United Kingdom reviewed the reports of 15 outbreaks of benign myalgic encephalomyelitis and concluded that these outbreaks “were psychosocial phenomena caused by one of two mechanisms, either mass hysteria on the part of the patients or altered medical perception of the community” (McEvedy and Beard, 1970, p. 11). They based their conclusions on the higher prevalence of the disease in females and the lack of physical signs in these patients. The crux of this, as I read it, is that ME was tied to "mass hysteria" was not because of the incidence in women -- but, it (along with "altered medical perception of the community") was because of the incidence in women AND the lack of physical signs (symptoms?). Irrespective, I am not convinced on ALT1.

Passing this back to the nominator for their inputs. QPQ is done. Ktin (talk) 15:26, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

For alt0, I've linked case definition, so it's more clear that this is indeed more than a simple illness description. It is an exact definition who counts as having this illness, and who doesn't.

For ALT1, which is the more interesting one, it could be changed to:

• • ALT1b: ... that physician Melvin Ramsay refuted the suggestion – partially based on the fact more women are affected – that myalgic encephalomyelitis is a form of mass hysteria? Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK274235/pdf/Bookshelf_NBK274235.pdf (p28).

Symptoms are what an ill person subjectively experiences, and signs are objectively observable (see signs and symptoms). While there were and still are few signs of ME/CFS, the psychiatrists claim that there weren't any signs was incorrect, as iirc muscle fatiguability was measureable even then. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:54, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

@Femke: Thanks. ALT0 looks good to be marked approved. I am on the fence re: ALT1b. There is nothing wrong with your phrasing. However, I am thinking (or rather hoping) that the reason the physicians tied it to mass hysteria (wrongly we can say now, with the benefit of hindsight) was because of the lack of physical signs in these patients. But, your piping of the gender bias page in the article leads me to believe that there might be something there. I also think that your hook would be diluted if we just say -- MR refuted the then prevailing notion that ME was a form of mass hysteria. Thoughts? Ktin (talk) 18:07, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

The treating physicians never tied it to mass hysteria; this was done by psychiatrists who reviewed the case notes, but never spoke to the patients to obtain consent or see if there were any signs. At the time the psychiatrists published their work, the prevailing view aligned with the current view of a mainly biomedical disease. It took a while before a (less overtly sexist) psychosocial view become dominant (between ~1985-2010?). A new paper discusses the sexism of the hysteria label in ME/CFS more closely from a social science perspective. This paper says the proportion of young women at the hospital was the main reason the psychiatrists gave for the diagnosis. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

@Femke: Thanks. Can you paste the relevant sentence(s) from the paper here? I do have access to T&F via the WPL. However, for some reason search there is not pulling this paper in the results. Ktin (talk) 18:37, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

For McEvedy and Beard, the “undue proportion”50 of young women working together at Royal Free was the “primary data”51 that supported a hysteria diagnosis. Of course, large groups of women do not constitute a disease, but most if not all the Royal Free ME patients likely experienced an actual illness that was ignored as psychosomaticism.. Both 50 and 51 cite the two psychiatrists. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:06, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Marking ALT1b approved based on the above conversation. ALT0 is already approved. Either of the two hooks can be promoted. Striking out ALT1 to improve readability. Ktin (talk) 08:32, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

PS: @Femke: you might find it mildly amusing that the other DYKN that I just reviewed was Template:Did you know nominations/Femke :)