Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Pancreatic cancer/archive1

Comments from SandyGeorgia

Moved from main page:

On the headers, I take it you have followed Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#A change to some of our headings, still not all closed. Like nearly all medical articles it doesn't have the full set. Otherwise, I've followed what seemed sensible (to me or other editors) eg, I think staging often deserves to be a level 2 section in cancer articles. I'm not quite sure what to say on the references, which have been much edited by others with their own views on how they should be, and would welcome some help on this. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 17:30, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Out of time for today, but quick examples:

• Which date format are you using? They vary throughout. "Pancreatic Cancer Treatment (PDQ®) Patient Version". National Cancer Institute. 2014-04-17. Retrieved 8 June 2014.
• Is this intended to be 5.7 ?? And a blank page number ? World Cancer Report 2014. World Health Organization. 2014. pp. Chapter 5.7.
• What author format are you using? Some use Diberri style, others differ. Seufferlein, T; Bachet, JB; Van Cutsem, E; Rougier, P; ESMO Guidelines Working, Group ... vs ... Bussom S, Saif MW (5 Mar 2010). (Of course, I prefer Diberri/BogHog, but it's up to you all to pick one and maintain a consistent citation style).
• There are missing dates and accessdates on websites, sample: National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism Alcohol and Cancer – Alcohol Alert No. 21-1993 and "Pancreatic cancer statistics". Cancer Research UK. Retrieved 28 October 2014.

Samples only, I haven't gotten through everything. Minimum, you should have consistent author format, consistent date format, publishers, dates and accessdates on all websites (that is, mostly the non-PMID sources, which I haven't yet looked at for compliance with MEDRS, but I imagine you would not be breaching MEDRS :) These sorts of things would most likely have been picked up on GA. Once you get all that sorted, this section can be hatted off so we can get to more substantial items. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:58, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Johnbod, there is still quite a bit of editing going on, so I will hold off on my review for a few days. As of this version, there are still quite a few citation inconsistencies and incomplete citations, and please also review for WP:NUMERAL errors throughout (eg 5-year). If you wouldn't mind pinging me when editing slows down, I will more substantially review content and other issues of WP:FACR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:53, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Will do, thanks Wiki CRUK John (talk) 16:24, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Dialogue

Dialogue moved from here because of no direct relevance (I think) to the FAC: 109.158.8.201 (talk) 09:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

:* IP 86, I have reverted your change of "Classification" to "Types". Wikipedia has long-standing guidelines for medical content, and I'm concerned at so many changes being put forward (by ips, no less) to represent one disease and one group representing that disease CORRECTION "diseases" at the expense of "conditions" that don't have an underlying disease process. Our standardized headings have worked well for many conditions: if you want to change them, please consider registering an account, working across the board on numerous kinds of medical content on Wikipedia, and making your arguments to develop consensus on guideline pages. Do not, please, make a change to an article at FAC and then push for the guideline to change to match that. Articles should be stable when they appear at FAC (see crit. 1e). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:42, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I have politely (I think) requested SandyGeorgia to address the substance of the concern I raised, and I have also pointed out to her (I can add chronological diffs, if necessary) that in no way did I "make a change to an article at FAC and then push for the guideline to change to match that." I would be glad if she withdrew her accusations altogether (including the false assumptions and illegitimate demands regarding my contributions – update: now done). I also don't know where the requirement for "working across the board on numerous kinds of medical content on Wikipedia, and making your arguments to develop consensus on guideline pages", comes from, though I have indeed done both. I also failed to understand any prior reason for a concern about somebody who is clearly no newcomer to medical editing in general misrepresenting "diseases " versus "conditions" (fwiw, [1]). I will refrain, for the time being at least, from making any other consideration here FAC comment .

Good luck to the FAC! 86.164.164.29 (talk) 10:12, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

On my talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:01, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: Following this unfortunate incident, and in the absence of any formal third-party clarification, I wished to refrain from further comment on this page. Nevertheless, I am confident that I have always tried to abide by WP policies and guidelines (including FAC ones), and I have continued to work on improving the page in view of the FAC process, per a longstanding informal commitment. Based on a request to raise concerns on the present page, I have (somewhat unwillingly) used the expedient of "piggybacking" off others' comments. I hope this is acceptable to everyone. 109.158.8.201 (talk) 11:32, 21 December 2014 (UTC); previously 86.164.164.29 etc.