Talk:Shingles/GA1

Herpes zoster successfully completed a GA review on March 23, 2008 thanks to the efforts of the editors below. Conversation related to the GA review process has been archived below to clear the main Talk page for ongoing improvements.

GA review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose):

   In the lead "the mechanism is not understood", would be clearer to say "exactly how the virus persists is not understood." if this is the meaning you intended.

   Comment Actually it's both how it persists and what causes it to suddenly reappear that is not understood. I'll rewrite OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

   The sentence "The nerve cell bodies of dorsal root, cranial nerve or autonomic ganglion may contain the latent virus" seems to repeat what the first sentence in that paragraph says.

   Fixed. I hope! OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

   Need to explain what "person-years" are, probably better to put it in words. "1.2 to 3.4 per 1,000 person-years" = in a group of 1,000 healthy people, about 1 to 3 cases appear every year.

   Fixed. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

   "sensitivity to stimuli" - what stimuli? Too general to be clear.

   Comment. Well, just about any stimuli, heat, cold, light, touch. I'm not sure it would be useful to list out everything, but it is almost everything. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

   Further information. I checked the reference, and matched it exactly. it refers to hyperesthesia and paresthesia, both of which sound very general, but it sounds more medical now!!! Anyways, I know that wasn't your intent, but I think it really is a general pain that is sensitive to heat, cold, light or touch. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

   ''"pain may be extreme in the affected nerve below" - Unclear, "the pain may be extreme in the affected nerve below the rash"?

   It is actually the dermatome, which I believe is described in the lead. So, I think it's now clear.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

   "100% rate of consistent prevalence" - unclear, does this mean the prevalence doesn't change from generation to generation?

   I'm thinking we should delete the sentence. I did a google search, and that sentence is used in a lot of articles and online epidemiology courses. And when I read them, it gives no definition. To me, it reads like a bunch of random words, and it makes no sense to me. A virologist or microbiologist will have to define it for us. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): - All external links check OK with LinkChecker

   b (citations to reliable sources) - Well-referenced to reliable sources

   c (OR) - None

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): Yes, good overall coverage.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias: - Yes, although data from the USA is over-represented in the section on epidemiology

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.: - None

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): - No non-free images used

   b (appropriate use with suitable captions): - EM image of virus needs to give approximate magnification in caption.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: Pass

   Tim Vickers (talk) 18:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm finished editing the text, and am putting this on hold until the last few questions are sorted and the image caption dealt with. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Pass, good work everybody! Tim Vickers (talk) 04:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone in the US call it plain zoster? I've never heard that here in Oz..Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Some people do, but I would say 90% of physicians and "victims" call it shingles. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The image looks like it might have initially been pulled from CDC's Image Library, ID#1878 (Electron micrograph of a Varicella (Chickenpox) Virus.), but still does not specify magnification level. Erskine Palmer on pubmed central turns up Complement-Fixing Antigens of Herpes Simplex Virus Types 1 and 2... which gives a similar but not identical image. Found the image credit based on http://www.nih.gov/news/research_matters/october2006/10272006shingles.htm, but still no magnification level. -Optigan13 (talk) 06:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Another link (much higher res image), still no luck on mag level - Link -Optigan13 (talk) 06:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)