Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Acne vulgaris/archive2

Comments from Victoria

I see there is a huge wall of text above that I've not bothered to read. I've been making my way through here for the past week or so, only got through the first few sections, and am posting these comments now. Don’t know if I’ll get back to this:

Lead

• "Genetics is thought to be the cause of acne in 80% of cases" >> reword to be more active. Something like, "Research indicates that 80% of acne cases are the result of family history or genetics" or "Eighty percent of acne cases result from family history and genetics".

That's a good suggestion. I'll incorporate it. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 16:41, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

• "The role of diet and cigarette smoking is unclear and neither cleanliness nor sunlight appear to be involved.[3][7][8]" >> I think the phrasing can be improved. These issues are possible causalities, and should be presented as such.

That's a little vague so I'm not sure what your suggested edit(s) are here. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 16:41, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

• No need to provide a cite for every sentence in the lead, unless these points are not addressed in the body, are controversial, or are direct quotes. If they’re not developed in the article body, they probably should be for an article like this.

This has been discussed before and is really a stylistic point. Many medical FAs do this. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 16:41, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

• Second para >> "However, resistance to antibiotics may develop as a result of antibiotic therapy." It’s best to avoid words like however. Try dropping it and combine the two sentences, i.e, "Antibiotics and retinoids are available in formulations that are applied to the skin and taken by mouth for the treatment of acne, which might cause resistance to antibiotics."

You say it's best to avoid words like "however" but you have not explained why that is the case. Please explain why your suggestion is an improvement rather than a simple style change. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 16:41, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

• Several types of birth control pills help against acne in women. > "help prevent". I think the “in women” can be dropped.

You'd be surprised what can be taken as a given and what can't. I've often been surprised by what people think is obvious and what people think isn't. Certain medications (i.e., ones with antiandrogenic properties like spironolactone are really meant for women when used for this purpose due to its side effect profile but men do take it for other reasons. I think slightly leaning toward additional clarity is helpful here). Also, contraceptives are not merely for prevention so that would be an overly restrictive statement. They have a role in acne treatment in women as well. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 16:41, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

• "Early and aggressive treatment of acne is advocated by some to lessen the overall long-term impact to individuals." > replace lessen with decrease? also this begs the question of advocated by whom?

That's a fair point I guess though it seems like a minor one (regarding word choice). I'll take another look at sources to see if I can clarify but I think it's likely dermatologists, psychiatrists, patient advocate/support groups, etc, as usual. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 16:41, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

• In 2013, acne was estimated to affect 660 million people globally, making it the 8th most common disease worldwide >> no need say globally and worldwide, one can be eliminated.

That's fair. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 16:41, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Classification

• "Acne severity classification" >> suggest rephrasing to something like, "The severity of acne is classified as ... "
• "Open (blackheads) and closed (whiteheads) clogged skin follicles (comedones) limited to the face with occasional inflammatory lesions classically defines mild acne" >> flip this sentence and lead with the type, i.,e "Mild acne is classified as …"
• Same with the next sentence
• Same with the last sentence > "said to occur" > who says?

Every dermatology text book lol. Suboptimal word choice, perhaps. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 16:41, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

• 2nd para > remove “however”

As above, please explain why this is an improvement. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 16:41, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Signs and symptoms

• Seems underdeveloped with the short two sentence paragraph leading into the scarring paragraph. The prominence of the scarring suggests that scarring is common - and in fact we say in Wikipedia’s voice that 95% of acne cases result in scarring, yet the source cited doesn’t seem to support this in the abstract

This is the first time anyone has thought the signs/symptoms section was underdeveloped. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 16:41, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

• "Scarring" > all of this section is cited to a single source. Are there other sources? Also is it common in medical articles to cite every single sentence with the same source?

There aren't very many articles dedicated to acne scarring. I've done a rather exhaustive search (the blocks of text above). There are over 100 sources in this article so there's a great diversity of sources but when there are only a handful of reviews on a topic that requires mention, then yes (until additional reviews become available and are then incorporated). TylerDurden8823 (talk) 16:41, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

• "Pigmentation" > avoid “however”

Same as above. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 16:41, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

• "Genes" > "The predisposition to acne for specific individuals is likely explained in part by a genetic component, a theory which has been supported by twin studies as well as studies that have looked at rates of acne among first-degree relatives" > tighten to something like, "The predisposition to acne for specific individuals is likely explained in part by a genetic component, a theory which has been [is} supported by twin studies as well as studies that have looked at rates of acne among first-degree relatives"

Why would you drop the "in part"? You don't think that might be misleading or confusing to readers? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 16:41, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

• "Hormones" > pregnancy? I notice pregnancy is in the management section. Maybe mention earlier that acne is an issue during pregnancy and then split out the meds that aren’t safe during pregnancy for the management section

Yes, pregnancy is in the management section because there are unique issues involved in managing acne while a woman is pregnant. Where are you suggesting an earlier mention of pregnancy? It's a ubiquitous problem (not an issue unique to pregnancy) but there are certain management pitfalls and preferences in pregnancy. Also, this IS mentioned earlier (briefly) in the hormones section under causes. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 16:41, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

• "Diet" > only milk or dairy in general? Why five citations for dairy milk?

That's what the sources say. Most concerns are about dairy milk consumption specifically but the issue hasn't been particularly well-studied. The citations are needed because it's so controversial (including in previous conversations about this article). Additionally, some articles comment a little more in depth about certain aspects of this hypothesized connection. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 16:41, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

• "Smoking" > short stubby para without much to offer in way of evidence. Can it be combined somehow?

Into what? Many articles have causes broken down this way. I don't see this as a major issue. Other reviewers have not raised this as a concern either and I don't see the problem. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 16:41, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

• "Stress" > suggest rewording. PMS is not a setting. This is another short stubby para in its own section. Can it be combined somehow?

PMS is a context/particular setting of stress (i.e., not all stress may affect acne in the same way or has the same evidence to suggest the acne/stress link). TylerDurden8823 (talk) 16:41, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Nitpicky/unimportant but adjusted. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:41, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm stopping here. Some general comments: there is a lot of blue, and many duplicate links that can be removed. Please see WP:Overlink. The word however occurs 13 times. It’s best to avoid it for encyclopedic prose. Lots of short stubby paras and short sections, which need to be rectified. I’m not convinced this is ready yet. Victoriaearle (tk) 12:39, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

You'll have to be more specific about why the word "however" is better avoided for encyclopedic prose (preferably with high-quality references to support this claim since these seems like a stylistic preference that no one else has yet to mention). Which blue links are you suggesting for removal or are redundant? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 16:41, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Note to coords - I prepared these notes a week or so ago and decided to paste them in this morning (thinking they weren't controversial), but I won't be able to get back to continue because of a family emergency.

A couple of replies:

• To be promoted to FA an article has to satisfy WP:FACR. Per 1. (a) it has to be well written. If a reader has trouble reading it, to the point of making suggestions (not because he or she can phrase something better but because as written it's confusing), then it fails that criterium. Per 2 (adhering to MOS), the following apply: MOS:PARAGRAPHS (this article has a number of short stubby paras, short sections, and a single sentence section), MOS:WTW (see the section on "however"), MOS:DUPLINK (there are 40+ instances of duplicate links beyond those in the lead and first mention in the body), and also WP:OVERCITE (some cites can be bundled). As an aside, John is the expert on explaining why it's best to avoid the use of "however". Per 2, (b), I'm not convinced the structure works (and honestly might apply 1, (b) to the structure as well). If a thorough literature search shows very few sources dedicated to one part of the topic (i.,e the "Scars" section), then WP:WEIGHT becomes an issue. Other potential WP:WEIGHT issues are the section about smoking and the lack of information about pregnancy in the causes section. There could be others; I've only read half the article, skimmed the rest. If I were to dedicate myself to a full top-to-bottom review, I'd be leaning oppose at this point. But I'll leave it as it is. Basically the criteria drive the process. Reviewers provide feedback. Anyway, good luck with it. Victoriaearle (tk) 20:23, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Victoriaearle, I would say most reviewers don't seem to agree that it's not well-written. It's not particularly helpful to me as the nominator to make a critique without being able to back it up (i.e., the however situation unless John answers this in a reasonable time frame). I disagree with your characterization of weight. They're important topics but not many recent reviews on topics (older reviews, sure, but the diversity of articles here is more than adequate). I also disagree with the OVERCITE argument since many statements have been asked for reinforcement with multiple sources to show that we are not relying heavily on one source for that particular statement (discussed extensively above). I'm actively addressing the points you just raised today so a little bit of time to implement those changes would be appreciated. "Short stubby paragraphs" is not an adequate reason to fail this criterion nor is the duplicated links. It's a long article so it's not unreasonable to have another blue link lower down in the article for complicated medical jargon/simplified terms (which there are many terms that may confuse the readers without the blue links. Leaning oppose is quite premature (especially given your earlier admission of not reviewing the above discussions). TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:17, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Butting in from way above: Victoriaearle, articles on diseases are written with a fairly standardized structure. Both patient-oriented and professional medical references do the same thing, to facilitate comparison among different related diseases. For some of the other stuff here (citation bundling, overlinking, etc) it's important to remember that over 60% of the traffic for this article comes from mobile devices. Bundled citations are a nuisance to read on mobile browsers and "duplicate" links are useful because of the way the mobile web interface works. Sections are collapsed by default, so it is even less true than usual that readers will read straight through from the top and will encounter links on the way. Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:34, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification Opabinia regalis. That said, I have reviewed other medical articles, so am not a complete novice. This is what happened: I was making my through slowly (I tend to work when I have time), kept notes in an off wiki file, my father in law died two days ago, and I needed to wrap up for a few days. Faced with the choice of sending the notes to trash (I considered that) or pasting them in with the thought that as a reviewer I'm here to help improve the article for Wikipedia's benefit, I took the latter course. At this point my wish is that I'll take your advice on board that I'm a crappy reviewer, TylerDurden8823 can consider all my comments struck, and Ian Rose, Laser brain and Sarastro1 can disregard the review. One point of clarification: I did not say I was opposing. I wrote that if I were to continue I'd be leaning oppose. The reason I wrote that is that after two months, and frankly I see work that needs to be done and asking for something so basic as dupe links to be removed is standard, my sense is that it would be better to stand back and try to get it right. Sorry for rocking the boat and sorry that you had to step in. I won't be bothering to review again. Victoriaearle (tk) 03:57, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Just going on record, fwiw: I'm a very experienced reviewer and FA writer. There is absolutely no requirement that I have to write or review. The comments I made were standard comments that I'd post in any FAC of this importance and that I've had to field in many of the 20 or so FACs I've shepherded through this place. Nothing was controversial and very minor tweaks were being requested, with the exception of issues of the structure. There is zero reason that I've received such a degree of push back. That simply should not be happening and undermines the reasons we're here and what's required to keep this place running. Victoriaearle (tk) 04:06, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Also, fwiw it's worth, Tyler's notification didn't work because it was added after he signed and saved the post. Opabinia's notification brought me back. Victoriaearle (tk) 04:27, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Victoriaearle, before I comment on the review suggestions, I will say that I'm sorry to hear about the loss in your family. Truly, you have my sincerest condolences. I'm not saying that you're a crappy reviewer nor am I implying that you're a novice, but the tone behind some of the earlier remarks and suggestions was frustratingly (and unnecessarily) critical or harsh in nature. That's damaging to the process. I'm a strong proponent of high-quality reviewing and do appreciate having many perspectives, but the manner in which some opinions have been offered (i.e., SV) has not seemed as constructive as it could be. Other reviewers have offered suggestions in a way that seemed very neutral and/or constructive and those are better received. With that said, I think perhaps we got off on the wrong foot. I did another couple of sweeps and did find some overlooked duplicated links that were unessential and those have been removed so the "burden of blue" should be reduced. I also didn't mean to put words in your mouth about the oppose (it sounded like you were heading that direction). I still disagree with you that some of the comments didn't deserve push back (though it begs the question if they were so minor why a lean toward an oppose would be warranted). Just because a suggestion is put forward does not mean it needs to be automatically accepted but they should always be addressed. This seems to be a common logical fallacy I've encountered. Disagreements are certainly permitted as are requests for clarification/support for a certain suggestion and a dialogue is what's crucial to the review process. It should be obvious that I'm not ignoring your comments (and have even implemented some-many of them (i.e., I actually found a few more acne scar sources and added them if you notice the recent edits)) but some suggestions were vague or I disagreed with them. That's allowed. A better use of time (IMO) would have been responding to my earlier responses instead but that's up to you. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 05:40, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

TylerDurden8823 I should have simply thrown out the comments I'd made a few weeks ago and not posted here. It was a mistake to do so, though I've frequently posted a partial review in the past so I didn't see that it would cause harm to mention some general points. That's sort of standard. Furthermore, it's really best not to personalize and instead realize this is a collaborative effort. The big concern I have at this point is that this FAC has been open for a long time but the reviewers who have been willing to really engage at the level the article requires have withdrawn. I'm happy to see the comments in the section below mine; I do think they are very helpful. Once again, good luck with it. Victoriaearle (tk) 17:23, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to hear about your father-in-law, Victoria. Best wishes :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:17, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Victoriaearle, that's up to you. I realize this is a collaborative effort (I've used that exact phrasing on this page multiple times). As I said before, I did not find your tone collaborative. This probably isn't the best time for you to spend time on Wikipedia given your recent loss. It's unfortunate that certain reviewers who have engaged have sometimes withdrawn due to frustration about disagreement or when I find that their comments are delivered in an abrasive manner. I'm not going to relinquish my right to disagree, especially when I've largely incorporated their suggestions. To suggest I should do otherwise is ridiculous. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 17:45, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Just to be very clear in case anyone is concerned about my mental state: I'm an ocean away from all things associated with the family emergency I mentioned (and would have liked not to have been baited into divulging more than necessary for this very reason), am happily at my computer doing what I normally do on any weekday. Please be very careful about skirting too close to NPA. Unwatching now. Victoriaearle (tk) 18:39, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

{{u|Victoriaearle)), that would have been my advice to you. Any "baiting" exists only in your mind. Your warning is unwarranted. Therefore, I'm disregarding it. We can cease with any further discussion. The comments I'm seeing are not productive/helpful. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:38, 6 March 2017 (UTC)