Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 141

Archive 135

←

Archive 139

Archive 140

Archive 141

Archive 142

Archive 143

→

Archive 145

Medical injections

While I hate to add to the multitude of recent posts of "this article/topic needs work on Wikipedia", I'd like to bring up the topic of injections. I found 17 articles related to purely medical injections (not including things like hypodermic needle that are more physical things) and only three of them are above start class. I think this is partially due to ratings not being updated (there's a few stub class that are longer than start class), but it's also because there's massive problems with many of the articles. As some examples, I removed a massive copyvio from one, removed just a long list of drugs with no sourcing whatsoever from another, and removed those lovely non-article content templates that SandyGeorgia loves so much from another. These articles are going to take a lot of work, but I think they're probably quite important to work on. Ideally, I'd like to try and get all of these to good article (and the topic of medical injections to good topic), but that's a dream for way in the future, so for now I'll just take any help I can get with WP:TNTing bad content out of these articles. That's really the biggest thing - the TNT is probably something anyone can help with, and I'll be able to build them back up once all the fluff/useless things are taken out. Thanks in advance for all your help. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 17:54, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

p.s., on a side note, my brain can't figure out for the life of me why the collapse parameter I added to the box isn't working here, so if anyone smarter wants to try and fix please help. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 18:04, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Berchan I suggest adding pageviews to your chart, and using that to guide your work. I like the idea of a stable number, like last year’s average pageviews ... get the most important done first ... sample ... I will help TNT as I can. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:23, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I've fixed the template/table for you and made it sortable. HTH --RexxS (talk) 18:31, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

As a start, I've been going through slowly and applying a liberal dose of high explosives as appropriate, as well as attempting to reorganize remaining sourced material to MEDMOS sections or at least sections that make more sense. I think I should be able to handle most of it, but I'll post below specific things I'd like assistance from more experienced editors on:

• Epidural administration - honestly, I don't even know where to start with this one...
• Transdermal implant - worth starting an AFD on this or at least removing it from WP:MED jurisdiction? Seems this can be covered in Implant (medicine) just fine.

I'll keep the list here updated with specific things I'd like more input on, but please feel free to work on any of these articles. These articles on medical injections total somewhere over 2 million views, and the only one above C-class is the one I recently created. Far from the only potential for improvement on Wikipedia, but one I think is likely more urgent than some others given the massive pageviews and the state of some of these pages. Thanks -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 07:25, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Shallow breathing in need of some love

Seems important, but I don't have the expertise to do it justice. Thought I'd post here in case anyone had some time. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:07, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

thank you for posting--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:45, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

NO/ROS balance

Hello MP:MED friends, I return again with a stubby medical orphan. Is the above article mergeable somewhere? If not, where can I link it from? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:22, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

redirect & merge to Reactive oxygen species...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:49, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

support Dr. Vogel (talk) 13:50, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Filtering-facepiece mask ontology

A filtering-facepiece mask, not certified to any national standard

There is a discussion at Talk:N95 mask#Page move, concerning the division into articles of the information summarized in Mechanical filter (respirator).

Specifically, should there be an article called filtering facepiece respirator (or filtering-facepiece mask, if it includes lookalike uncertified filtering-facepiece masks)? Should there be separate articles for filtering-facepiece masks that are certified to each of the national standards ("respirators" in US terminology)? That is, separate articles for N95 mask (US) and FFP mask (FFP1, FFP2 and FFP3, EU) etc.? One or the other? Both? Neither? Thanks! HLHJ (talk) 19:04, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:52, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Ozzie10aaaa. I found your reply a bit cryptic, so I posted a request for clarification there. HLHJ (talk) 04:06, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

thank you for so doing, as I have rethought my reply--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:00, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject COVID-19 § Very general taking stock of our COVID-19 coverage so far

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject COVID-19 § Very general taking stock of our COVID-19 coverage so far. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:19, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

US residency programs

Special:Contributions/208.185.20.14 edited mostly content on US residency programs, specifically around the market structure. Their edits seem to be unsourced and removed some sources. Needs expert to determine if it's update or slant. HLHJ (talk) 01:23, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

The last edit I find from Special:Contributions/208.185.20.14 is 16 June 2017 Diff. Do you read the make-up of the Board of Directors as a market structure discussion? There was nothing remarkable on that edit; I would have to do research to see if it is accurate. I was on a residency selection committee for 10 years at UTHSC in Memphis and taught residents for 43+ years.Memdmarti (talk) 01:57, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Survey of external links bot

Hi all, I've made a request for a bot to be created to run a survey of the external links in our article space (See Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Medical_external_links_survey). This is with a view to updating our set of external link templates (Category:Medicine external link templates) based on links we currently use. It would also be interesting to see the prevalance of links to sites that we wouldn't consider reliable, such as search results.

Regarding external link templates - having these templates is very useful. In the anatomy space, it's made bulk fixing of dead links much easier. As I've seen in my recent template survey, it's also been useful to help centralise discussion about links that are no longer seen as useful - they can be deleted in one fell swoop if the source destination changes, is no longer seen as reliable or, for example, becomes paywalled. Lastly, if we want to move some of these links to authority control or other templates, it will be a useful precursor. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:26, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Heads up about new UCSF WikiEd course

Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/UCSF/Foundations II (Summer 2020)

(edit conflict) See this edit at Talk:Kwashiorkor regarding a UCSF course that touches on numerous medical topics. The table at the course description contains course assignments listing dozens of Wikipedia articles within the purview of WikiProject medicine. Context expert for this course is User:Ian (Wiki Ed). Advisors at WikiEd are stretched much thinner than before, due to recent budget/covid-related layoffs on July 1, so any help or additional eyeballs by members of this project at any of the articles, would be helpful. Here is the list of articles:

If you want to add these articles to your Watchlist, you can do so in a single operation, using a bulk edit. This is described at Help:Watchlist#Controlling which pages are watched, at #3. Edit entire watchlist. Or just go to Special:Watchlist/raw and append the entire list below to the bottom of your watchlist. (Be careful; your watchlist is not versioned, afaik, so if you *replace* it instead of appending to it by mistake, I'm not sure how your could get it back again. If this is your first time using the bulk edit/("raw" edit) feature, I would recommend saving the current contents of your Watchlist somewhere offline, before you muck with it. That said, this is a very easy operation.) Note that the bulk edit feature removes duplicates, so if any of these are already on your Watchlist, it won't matter; dupes will be eliminated. (Ditto, if I've inadvertently left some dupes in the list itself.)

Append this list in raw edit mode to add them to your Watchlist

Active surveillance of prostate cancer Baby-led weaning Brigance Inventory of Early Development (IED ii) Childhood absence epilepsy Childhood schizophrenia Chorioamnionitis Chronic diarrhea of infancy Contraceptive mandate Copenhagen disease Coxsackie A virus Cradle cap Depression in childhood and adolescence Developmental dysfluency DPT vaccine Dupuytren's contracture Enuresis Epignathus Epilepsy in children Esophageal atresia Feminine hygiene Fertility tourism Fetal echocardiography Fibrocartilaginous mesenchymoma of bone Follicle-stimulating hormone Gene therapy for osteoarthritis Genital ulcer Gestational pemphigoid Glomerulation Gray baby syndrome Heaf test Health survival paradox Hepatitis C and HIV coinfection Hip resurfacing Hydrolethalus syndrome Hyperandrogenism Hypoestrogenism Incest between twins Infant mortality Infantile apnea Intrauterine hypoxia Joint injection Joint replacement Klismaphilia Kwashiorkor Large for gestational age Late-life mortality deceleration Male chest reconstruction Male menstruation Mastitis Maternal somatic support after brain death Medical fetishism Menstrual disorder Mobility scooter Neonatal withdrawal Nocturnal clitoral tumescence Nursing home care in the United States Obesity and fertility Obstetric transition Obstetrical forceps Onselling of sperm Orchiectomy Palliative sedation Pelvic lipomatosis Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification System Penectomy Penile agenesis and testicular agenesis Perineodynia Persistent fetal circulation Pervasive developmental disorder Pessary Phalloplasty Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment Postmenopausal confusion Pre-exposure prophylaxis Pregnancy test Pregnancy-associated malaria Prenatal perception Prostaglandin E2 Prostate biopsy Protein toxicity Pruritic urticarial papules and plaques of pregnancy Pseudosenility Reproductive immunology Rheumatoid nodule Septic abortion Septic pelvic thrombophlebitis Sexology Sexual medicine Shenkui Sigmoidoscopy Sinoatrial block Sinus bradycardia Stasis dermatitis Subdural hygroma Superfecundation Tampon The seven-year itch Unassisted childbirth Unicornuate uterus Urethritis Urogenital pelvic malignancy Uterine myomectomy Uterotonic Vaginitis

If WP:MEDICINE already has a bot available that advises you of upcoming WikiEd courses that affect articles of interest to this project, please let me know, so I don't waste my time on this again. If it doesn't, I'd recommend you request one. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 01:10, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing this. There is no bot that I am aware of. We were trying to share all courses that are editing medical content here, and User:Ian (Wiki Ed) was helping to populate this.JenOttawa (talk) 11:03, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Volunteers

I have watched three: pervasive developmental disorder, prostate biopsy, unassisted childbirth. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:59, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

@Mathglot: Thank you for the notification. I added a few to my watchlist as well: DPT vaccine, klismaphilia, and medical fetishism.―Biochemistry🙴❤ 02:16, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Gandydancer, I think there may be a couple on this list that you're familiar with. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:23, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I will watch Obstetrical forceps, Baby-led weaning, and Palliative sedation. Gandydancer (talk) 17:53, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I have added Coxsackie A virus, sexual medicine and Hepatitis C and HIV coinfection.Graham Beards (talk) 06:40, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I added Epilepsy in children and Childhood absence epilepsy. -- Colin°^Talk 10:55, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I have added the microbe-related articles: Chronic diarrhea of infancy, Chorioamnionitis, Coxsackie A virus, DPT vaccine, Genital ulcer, Gray baby syndrome, Heaf test, Hepatitis C and HIV coinfection, Male menstruation, Pre-exposure prophylaxis, Septic abortion, Septic pelvic thrombophlebitis, Urethritis, and Vaginitis. Ajpolino (talk) 19:12, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I will go through and put Y checkmarks by what is watched so far. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:33, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you (and everyone) for your efforts. Mathglot (talk) 09:52, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I've added active surveillance of prostate cancer, Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification System and pseudosenility to mine; it looks like we all may need to take a few more. Please place a tick by those you watchlist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:41, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I've watchlisted Contraceptive mandate, Fertility tourism, Pregnancy test and Reproductive immunology. --RexxS (talk) 21:53, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I've added: Shenkui, Onselling of sperm, Cradle cap, The seven-year itch. Alexbrn (talk) 04:31, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I added: Male chest reconstruction, Maternal somatic support after brain death, Obstetric transition, Phalloplasty, Superfecundation. Mathglot (talk) 09:58, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on esophageal atresia and persistent fetal circulation (surprised we still use this term). Larry Hockett (Talk) 16:45, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for taking these on. Maybe you and the students will decide to WP:MOVE the page to a more appropriate title. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:18, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Childhood schizophrenia, developmental dysfluency, and depression of childhood and adolescence.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 19:35, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I have added Joint replacement and Hip resurfacing to my watch list. JenOttawa (talk) 10:38, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I also have Large for gestational age on my watch list.JenOttawa (talk) 02:34, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I can watch juvenile myelomonocytic leukemia and uterotonic with the caveat that I am assigned to the newborn nursery for the next month (aka lots of time to edit Wikipedia) and then in ICU (aka much less time) the following month. But I'll do my best! Keilana (talk) 18:01, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Flyer, I suspect that some of the articles in the collapsed, "Articles assigned list" above are already on your watch list. If so, could you list them below, so others know where we have coverage already? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 22:52, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, a number of articles under "Append this list in raw edit mode to add them to your Watchlist" are on my watchlist. Too many to go through at the moment and list. I think that pervasive developmental disorder used to be on my watchlist. For those aware of the areas I usually work in, sexology is obviously on my watchlist. Other examples: Tampon and Klismaphilia are my watchlist. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:43, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I have added Anti-aging supplements, Biliblanket and Kwashiorkor to my watch list. David notMD (talk) 00:19, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Status

Thank you to everyone who has volunteered so far. I love that people are volunteering to watch a few specific articles that interest them. That helps spread the workload. More than 40% of the articles for this class have already been picked up by experienced mentors. According to the schedule, the class will end on Friday, 21 August, just about five weeks from now, so this is a short-term commitment.

I've just reorganized the list a bit to make it a bit easier to see what's left. The biggest areas are pediatrics and women's health, but we also need editors who are interested in rare diseases, geriatrics, cardiology, immunology, and more. If you look at Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/UCSF/Foundations II (Summer 2020), you can see that each student has named several articles. You can choose articles based on the subject, or you can look at the list and pick a single student to mentor on multiple unclaimed articles.

If you're on the fence about signing up: Please do! Just move the article(s) you want to the ===Watched=== subsection, add your name to the list above. It's okay to volunteer for just one article and to be realistic about your availability. But I do encourage you to try it out. These are all new editors, so they have a lot to learn, and we want them to make them successful in improving these articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:55, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I've got a matching offer ('ya know, like in fundraising :) I've got seven so far. I'll add two more if five other editors take two more. And I will EVEN make those two be feminine hygiene and tampon. How's that for sacrificial duty? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:32, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

1. Larry Hockett, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:02, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
2. MarkWorthen, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:17, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
3. JenOttawa SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:09, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
4. Keilana SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:11, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to take SandyGeorgia up on her offer, so we need at least four more volunteers to shepherd these students through the next month. So I'm pinging: User:RafaelS1979, User:Mrakia, User:Mark v1.0, User:TheTechnician27, User:IntoThinAir, User:Literaturegeek, User:ParticipantObserver, User:Lexein, User:Mack2, User:EMsmile, User:Keilana, User:JenOttawa, User:EMsmile, User:Markworthen.

Y'all, if you click above in the collapsed bit called "Articles assigned at UCSF Foundations II course", then you'll see a list of medical situations that affect ===Children===. You have previously been one of the biggest contributors to one of those articles. If you are willing to help these med students sort out how to improve the articles, then please sign up in the ===Volunteers=== section. Just add a note there to tell us which article(s) you want to help with, and then check back in the coming weeks to see how the student is getting along during the class. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:43, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Where is the Volunteers section?   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 16:57, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Right above this one, at #Volunteers, Markworthen. I hope that this question means that you want to put your name there soon. :-D WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:32, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Updated lists

WhatamIdoing, are you watching the Course page? It's gotten a good bit longer. Looking at only the most recent row all the way at the bottom, none of those four are in our list yet: Senile osteoporosis, Juvenile myelomonocytic leukemia, Sperm bank, Spermatocele. I didn't try to figure out exactly what's new, there, but if you find out when I first posted here, then go to the course page at that timestamp and diff it with current, that should be a good approximation. I don't have the bandwidth to do anything about this right now. Mathglot (talk) 05:55, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

@Mathglot: here is the diff;[1] it is not very helpful since some of them were already on your list. And it is apparent that WPMED cannot keep up with this.

Ian (Wiki Ed) even with our best efforts, this is out of control and too much novice editing for all of us together to watch. Why can User:Health policy not restrict their students to one or two articles each? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:17, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi. The students are in groups of four people, and each group of four people was assigned to multiple articles and asked to pick two of them to edit. We assigned them to multiple articles in advance this year after a Wiki Ed Dashboard error last year when students attempted to select articles and despite only clicking once were assigned and unassigned to those articles by the Dashboard several hundred times per hour, which led to several people who were watching those articles have their inboxes explode with notifications. To ensure that would not happen again we assigned each of them to a longer list of articles in advance rather than having them self-select the final articles they will edit. Health policy (talk) 22:46, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure how that response addresses the problem or query. There are 123 students, and the dashboard does not say how many articles, but too many for us to monitor. I have begun updating the list above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:07, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I have updated the list above; there appear to be 123 students and 128 articles. Too many articles for novice editors to be hitting all at once. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:26, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Good news! [2] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:44, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

New, reduced list

Update: Just a quick heads-up that the students have started to edit. --RexxS (talk) 21:17, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Yep, and they need reminders about primary sources, it would be considerate if they would supply PMIDs, and helpful to remind them to not just add citations to existing content, rather make sure it is also udated and accurate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:29, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

The instructor has agreed to have the students work on only one article per group. Here's the updated (and reduced) list of articles they're working on:

Please 'tick' the articles you'll watch on this much reduced list:

Three tildes (~~~) will link your user + talk pages, no timestamp. Y Biliblanket  – David notMD claimed this @22:38, 13 August updated by Mathglot (talk) Y Breast prostheses – Mathglot (talk) JenOttawa Y Chorioamnionitis AJpolino Y Chronic diarrhea of infancy Ajpolino Copenhagen disease Y Coxsackie A virus Graham Beards, Ajpolino YDrugs in pregnancyJenOttawa (talk) 01:27, 4 August 2020 (UTC) Y Enuresis ―Biochemistry🙴❤ YEpignathus Colin Y False pregnancy SandyGeorgia (Talk) Y Fertility medication SandyGeorgia (Talk) Y Fertility tourism RexxS Y Hepatitis C and HIV coinfection Graham Beards, Ajpolino Y Hypoestrogenism – Mathglot (talk) but mostly Sandy, who did an amazing job.  – Mathglot (talk) Y Infant Mortality Colin Y Large for gestational age JenOttawa Y Obesity and fertility Colin Y Palliative sedation Gandydancer Y Persistent fetal circulation Larry Hockett Pessary Pregnancy-associated malaria Y POLST    - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) Y Pre-exposure prophylaxis Y Prostaglandin E2 David notMD Y Rheumatoid nodule ―Biochemistry🙴❤ Y Sexual medicine Graham Beards Y Senile osteoporosis ―Biochemistry🙴❤ Y Tampon Flyer22 Y Urethritis Ajpolino Y Uterotonic Keilana

Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:51, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Ian (Wiki Ed); this is much more manageable. I will go through and add Y to those that are watched so we can reassign. On one of the articles where I deleted the Wikied dashboard,[3] another student later added it back. Will someone be going through and removing the dashboard notifications on talk for those articles no longer covered? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:34, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Also, Ian (Wiki Ed) I am guessing you meant Prostaglandin E2 instead of E5. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:50, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I was wondering if that was a typo. And I'll look into changing the assignments (if they're unassigned on the Dashboard the changes will be made to the talk page templates automatically. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:00, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

@Biochemistry&Love, Gandydancer, Colin, Graham Beards, Ajpolino, RexxS, Alexbrn, Mathglot, Larry Hockett, WhatamIdoing, Keilana, Markworthen, JenOttawa, and Flyer22 Frozen: Thanks for volunteering! The course list has changed considerably, and most of those we had watched are no longer being student edited, so we will need to re-assign. Ajpolino and Graham Beards ended up with the most, and some of us ended up with none! If you can handle one of the new articles (instead of the old ones you had), please add a tick mark before the article and your name after. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:23, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Comment: I've added {{DNAU}} with an expiration set for 28 Aug, one week after the course ends. Mathglot (talk) 23:54, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Copyvio on every student article I have followed ... remember to check. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:37, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

@Ian (Wiki Ed): I'm confused about the differences between the "reduced list", and the course page, which continues to grow. Where does the reduced list actually come from? When I look at the course list now, it seems as long and wide as it was before, and has grown this much in the last four days. The added courses highlighted in that Diff may be duplicates of others already on the list for some other student perhaps, but if each student is only working on one, why would they be adding articles to their own list which is already four articles long on the average? What does the course list on that page now represent, if the reduced list above is accurate? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 00:51, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

@Mathglot: The list comes from a discussion with the instructor, who agreed that they would only work on one article per group, instead of the planned 4 per group. It looks like these changes are all articles on this list. The old assigned articles still need to be removed. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 13:29, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

@Ian (Wiki Ed): will the instructor be reviewing all Wikipedia articles and the student improvements to ensure quality control? I am trying to help, but even with only a few articles on my watch list the volume of content is just too much to keep up with as a volunteer.JenOttawa (talk) 14:31, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't look like it, because the quality is poor, requiring a lot of cleanup and clarification. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:07, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Help section

I've added this subsection, in case editors want to discuss individual articles on the reduced list.

Hypoestrogenism

I originally approached Sandy (here) regarding 90 student edits at Hypoestrogenism, and even since I composed it, there are more, and I'm not sure I can keep up. (I'm also probably the least experienced of all of you at Med articles, which is a factor.) It's maybe more appropriate to raise this here, though, rather than her page. The main issue I raised, was the appropriateness of the #Hypogonadism subsection, or whether the whole thing should be reduced to a sentence with hyperlinks. My other question was about "Causes" vs. "Etiology" as a section title, and if there's any guidance about that. Any advice about that topic, or any other, is much appreciated; either here, if more "Med mentor-y", or at the article talk page, if more "content-y". Thanks! (please  mention me on reply; thanks!) Mathglot (talk) 01:14, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I think I'm good for the moment; Sandy replied with lightning speed. Now, it's up to me at the article; will post again here if I need more help. Mathglot (talk) 01:20, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I am making the six-hour drive home from the cabin tomorrow, which means iPad typing from my car, with lots of typos, so no more lightening speed :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:43, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Just wanted to acknowledge the amazing job Sandy did at the article. In a flurry of edits, she whipped several sections into shape. When I catch my breath, I'l try to improve that section at #Hypogonadism. By that time, she'll probably be home... Mathglot (talk) 03:40, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Home, but tired, thanks for the kind words!! Any women in town? Here’s a winner ... “Hypoestrogenism is typically used to diagnose other disease states such as menopause”. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:25, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

😲   —Mathglot (talk) 00:18, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Nearly there

SandyGeorgia, Mathglot, User:Biochemistry&Love, Gandydancer, Graham Beards, Colin, Ajpolino, RexxS, Alexbrn, Larry Hockett, User:Markworthen, JenOttawa, Keilana, Flyer22 Frozen, David notMD, User:Ian (Wiki Ed) and anyone else who's watching students in this course: There's just about two weeks left. How are things going? How can we support you? Have you considered invited your student(s) to continue editing in the future? Even a small edit here or there would be a good thing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:53, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

None of the articles I'm watching have been edited for a week, so I assume the Wikipedia part of the course is mostly over? For a day or two at the peak I wasn't able to keep track of everything happening, but otherwise this seemed good relative to other student projects I've seen here. I've been meaning to take a look back through to make sure I didn't miss anything particularly egregious and to invite students to continue editing. Perhaps this weekend I'll have a moment. Thanks for checking in! Ajpolino (talk) 19:59, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for touching base and for offering support. I reviewed my articles. I really could not keep up with the volume of edits. If someone has time Drugs in pregnancy could use a set of eyes. So many new medication categories were added that I did not review all the new content. I just did some work on the lead of this article that I would greatly appreciate another set of eyes on to get feedback on the changes I made. I think that the group did pretty well on Breast prosthesis, although this is not in my field/area of expertise. I mostly revised the formatting on this one. Thanks again for getting us organized to tackle this! JenOttawa (talk) 22:16, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Jen, I took a quick look, and I left some comments on the talk page. Having first checked what used to be on the page (which was basically terrible), I'm really impressed with how much progress they made. Someone who already knows basic-primary-care stuff about pregnant women should probably just read through it just to check for any obvious mistakes, but it's a really dramatic improvement. They have more than tripled the number of sources, replaced most of the old ones with recent sources, and expanded the content significantly to make it much more comprehensive. It's not going to pass FA, or even GA, today, but it is a substantial upgrade from what we had before. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:02, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I put Kwashiorkor, Anti-ageing supplements and Biliblanket on my watch list. The first two had one and two edits, respectively, on 27 July. Biliblanket had lots of work, but nothing after 5 August, which was when I started watching it and left statements of work needed on the Talk page. None of the students contacted me even though I had pinged them. I am disappointed unless edits start appearing. David notMD (talk) 22:38, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@David notMD: Of those, only Biliblanket is on the #New, reduced list; Kwash and A-aging are not; that probably explains the reduced editing at those two. Mathglot (talk) 03:09, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I've been checking in on the enuresis article, and I question whether it is really worth having a separate article from nocturnal enuresis. I could use some comments here.―Biochemistry🙴❤ 22:53, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I have found it to be no better, and no worse than the typical student editing experience, with one of everything of the usual sorts of things that have to be dealt with; poor quality sources, copyvio (both text and images), failure to engage on talk, text that belongs in other articles, high-school level writing, misrepresenting sources, text in the wrong place, text that is plain wrong, text that lacks context, gobs of MOS-y cleanup-- in other words, the usual, that makes me appreciate the cleanup that Wiki Ed did (and I wish could still be doing if WMF had not cut staff-- this was a huge task to take on). I love mentoring new editors, but since students rarely stick around or return, the mentoring feels futile. The end result is that we have three as-of-now poor articles that are much better than they would be if not for our intervention and cleanup after the students, but the reason we have this extra marginal content is because established Wikipedians had to babysit to make it happen. In my case, that meant putting off FAC reviews, peer reviews, and writing articles that interested me so that I could clean up three articles that don't interest me. But whatyagonnado.

Now for the GOOD NEWS! I hope everyone will please welcome again and thank Memdmarti, who is a topic expert who can clean up the remaining problems at false pregnancy, fertility medication and hypoestrogenism. Memdmarti has worked hard to digest Wikipedia policies and guidelines, making considerable notes on his talk page as he works through our weirdness, and LOOK at what he's done here in terms of fixing what is at false pregnancy. If the students don't deal with it (unlikely they will), Memdmarti has said he will get to it. So, we win by engaging a new-ish editor, willing to do the clean up, and I believe/hope he will also take on the other two ob/gyn articles. I don't see much point in trying to get students to engage further-- they never do, but ... Thanks, Memdmarti!! Student editing is a pretty huge timesink with very little reward, but if Memdmarti can turn these into accurate articles, we win. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:55, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh, and thanks to Mathglot for getting us organized on this: I hope we will ALL vote wherever one does that voting for WMF to do a better job of funding Wiki Ed, so that paid staff can do this cleanup, and we can do other things. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:58, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Dan Memdmarti (talk) 03:53, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, regarding your question above about future student editing: editor retention is a very important topic, and deserves its own section, rather than be somewhat obscured here, and lost in the shuffle. Accordingly, I've raised it at the Education Noticeboard, at WP:ENB#Student editor retention. I encourage anyone who wants to comment about student editor retention, to do so there, where the right people will see it. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 01:09, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

• The students who edited POLST significantly improved the article. They demonstrated an above average understanding of Wikipedia editing conventions and requirements. I learned a lot reading their additions to the article. :0)   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 15:54, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing uterotonic this afternoon since I'm sitting in the nursery, waiting for babies to come up from the labor deck. :) Keilana (talk) 17:30, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

• I was very pleasantly surprised with the good work "my" students did. Over the years I have been extremely critical of students, and for good reason. However, I am even more critical of the student's instructors -- and the whole set-up as far as that goes. I can only guess that instructors do not have a clue as to how difficult it is to edit medical articles. I believe that it's often easier to write an entirely new article than to attempt to improve an existing one, even for an experienced editor. Add to that, a student most likely does not yet recognize whether the article they're supposed to improve is actually already quite good or pretty bad. I wish they'd change the program and instead, as a class, perhaps just look at a few articles and judge how good or bad they are. I think that the instructors need to be more involved. Some of our best editors, Sandy for example, might be willing to advise the instructor. Anyway, I pinged and praised my students but not surprisingly heard nothing back from them. So in the end, as comparatively they were pretty good, I can't see where they actually learned much of anything when no critical feedback was given. Gandydancer (talk) 12:55, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

• Curious that you mention advising the instructors, as I in fact recently undertook a large mentorship venture to help a busy instructor better learn the ropes. I came up with a missing article-- one I have often needed but is now a redlink-- and started walking Eyoungstrom through how to develop a stub step-by-step. I do agree that training the instructors is likely to be more productive than spending a lot of time with students who almost never stick around so that articles can benefit from what we have taught them. Eyoungstrom and I seem to be stalled, but it's summer and I suppose he has gotten busy-- at any rate, it has been good learning for both of us, as it gave me the chance to understand how they were working, what tools they were using, what things they were completely unaware of, etc. I hope we'll resume the lesson plan soon, as it is giving Eyoungstrom a roadmap.
  Some history for everyone on the Education Program might be helpful. Many Many Moons Ago, I was party to the birth of this program, when User:Jbmurray brought multiple Spanish-language literature articles from his classes through WP:FAC, producing quite a few Featured articles, and many more Good articles. I was doubly involved, as FAC delegate, and because I speak Spanish. Jb was not only an instructor: he was a very involved editor (in fact, I co-nommed him RFA). Jon knows how to edit, and was actively engaged. Nonetheless, I was quite frustrated at the time (YEARS ago) at seeing how much of FAC's resources were drained to produce just one FA, where those same resources could have produced in the same time ten non-student FAs, as the students required so much handholding. EVEN with FAs produced, to my knowledge, none of those students stuck around. And publicity around Jbmurray's course launched the Wiki Ed program, even though we have never had another instructor who was hands on as Jb was. It was a program that took hold around the efforts of one very knowledgeable professor, who was very engaged with Wikipedia, but that nonetheless tapped a lot of resources. So, I do think that training the instructors is more useful than hoping the students will ever respond to talk pages, but at the same time, I hold out little hope that the program will ever be more than a drain on regular editor time, where like at FAC, we could do ten in the time it takes to mentor one. And I seriously think the WMF goofed in letting go of staff, leaving us with the work for a program they were happy to see promoted in the media a decade ago. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:15, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

  Piotrus is another long-time editor and instructor who gives a lot of support to his students.

  (Also, the Wiki Education Foundation, which runs most of the formal student editor programs, is not the same as the Wikimedia Foundation.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:08, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

  Ah, Piotr ... another FA writer ... a very different level of Wikiknowledge compared to today’s student-editing profs. WAID, are you saying the WMF could not send some funding in the direction of student editing if they were concerned about the effect on regular editors? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:41, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

  It's worth noting that the Wiki Education Foundation operates in the USA and Canada, so other regions will make use of other resources. In the UK, for example, Wikimedia UK supports numerous editing initiatives for students, most frequently through Wikimedians-in-Residence, but I do introductory and liaison work with UK Universities when invited. I expect that other countries will have similar arrangements. --RexxS (talk) 21:36, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

  Ha, thanks for remembering me. Former FA writer, I gave up on FAs a few years ago after coming to the conclusion that nitpicking on prose makes it impossible to get stuff featured (an article of mine got copyedited by three copyeditors, each of whom objected to one another's copyedits at the FA process... or something else crazy like that). Still, since the FA process still exists I guess maybe I just had a singularly bad experience at that time, but I remember it being so utterly frustrating I am stopping at GAs now.

  As for the entire Wiki Edu and friends (which I still overall support, it "kinda" works, like the rest of our project, lol)... it is the usual problem of not enough volunteers, here or there. (Well, WE technically gets paid for what they do, but I doubt they are making much). In the end, students=newbies, and even experienced Wikipedians like myself can do only so much, since even if we prepare a very good syllabus/tools and use the pretty decent tools WikiEdu and the community provides, newbies will be newbies, and students will be students, with all that this entails: a minority will be good, most will be so-so and the other end of the normal curve will cause trouble. All that is happening, in the end, is that we are forcing a few dozen people to edit Wikipedia, creating a few dozen new semi-active accounts that get assistance from one person (instructor), who most often then not is a newbie themselves. Since the Wikipedia:Ambassador program was retired (I still don't understand why, exactly), only instructors in US-Canada can get some additional support (in the form of salaried Wiki Edu personnel), those of us in the rest of the world only get to use their dashboard tool (thanks), but we get zero personnel support. So on that note, if you are unhappy with the results you are getting from a Wiki Edu supported course... just be happy you don't have to deal with the rest of the world, where there is no infrastructure to support instructors outside self-help (i.e. "hope you are lucky to find the tools we make public and learn how to use them"). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:52, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

  Of course I remember you, Piotr! I didn't have the pleasure of promoting any of your FAs, as you were generally well before my time, and the one promotion during my tenure was handled by Karanacs and Laser brain, but of course I was well aware of your body of work. One thing you were facing is that very few editors in those early days of Wikipedia knew your content areas as you did, while in Medicine, we have the benefit of having many knowledgeable eyes on topics. But I always recommend (for the reasons you raise) that FAC nominators have experienced FA people watching the nomination to revert and contest the unhelpful additions, changes or FAC commentary. Anyone can comment at FAC, and not all commentary or edits are valid!

  As an example of not being able to force students to care about Wikipedia, the Spanish literature FAs produced by students-- which consumed FAC resources for months at a time-- have now fallen into disrepair and are appearing at WP:FAR. Even with the best possible scenario and a very good Wikipedia experience, none of the students cared to stick around to maintain those articles, which are now full of Black WikiGoo Cruft.

  I do wish the WMF would send some money in the direction of having paid staff clean up the messes student editing leaves, or alternately, do everything they can to shut down student editing, as we reap little benefit. Articles end up improved because established editors engage. All the articles we would be writing correctly while we are mentoring students who never return ... interesting that our two Wikipedia-knowledgeable profs have come out more or less at the same place on this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:27, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

  At the risk of banging the UK drum again, there are resources going into the chapter which not only pay the salaries of ten staff, but also have been used to seed-fund wholly or partially Wikimedians-in-Residence, many of whom are, or have been, based at Universities. An excellent model is the collaboration with Edinburgh University, which Melissa Highton reported on: "As part of our partnership with Wikimedia UK we have run 222 training sessions. We’ve trained 1,151 students, 516 staff and 432 members of the public to edit Wikipedia. They have created 793 new articles and improved 2,752." This summer the university sponsored a student as a Wikimedia Training Intern. I believe the success at university level has come about by cultivating partnerships with interested academics, by having experienced Wikimedians embedded in the institutions, and by ensuring that WMUK staff are devolved sufficiently to be responsive to local needs (WMUK has Welsh and Scottish Programme Managers). It's still early days, but I think that the model of dedicated local support for individual institutions will eventually scale better than centralised models. My take on all this is that WPMED will get most long-term value from investing time in relationships whenever we come across a willing academic, such as the ones we've recently discovered. If we have to create out own unofficial "MED ambassadors" to supply the extra expertise, it will be worth it if we can engage the course leaders inside the institution. If we look for ways of supporting/educating those academics, instead of merely trying to clean up student errors, I believe we'll make our task far more manageable in the long run. --RexxS (talk) 21:53, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Post-mortem discussion at ENB

We've had Ian's help and benevolent monitoring here, but he's just one person. There's a whole Wiki Ed team out there, that isn't necessarily watching here. The feedback of the MED team is important for Wiki Ed to hear, in my opinion; likewise, we can probably learn some tips from their years of experience with student editors. We should chat directly together about our experiences. Accordingly, I've opened this discussion at the Wiki Education Noticeboard:

Wikipedia:Education noticeboard/Archive 20#MED editing experience and post-mortem

The course is not quite over, but when you have a moment, please add your thoughts and feedback about your experience with the "Foundations II" course (or other Wiki Ed courses) at the listed discussion. It will help them help us. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 01:19, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Teahouse ping list

Hello! Editors are invited to add themselves to the list at User:Usedtobecool/Tea if they would be interested in helping answer WPMED (or any of the other listed areas) -related queries at the Teahouse. I do not expect volunteers to get pinged to the Teahouse more than a few times a year, but on occasions that they do get pinged, it might be en masse which means only the earliest bird would be likely to get the worm. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:42, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Violence article

Violence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article could very much use eyes from this WikiProject and others, which I will also alert. Regarding WP:TALKCENT, I'm not fully sure where the central discussion should take place. To me, it makes the most sense for it to be had here, but someone else might feel it's best had at WP:Crime or WP:Law. Still, not all violence falls under criminal/legal matters. I've started a section at Talk:Violence#Defining violence in the lead sentence for central discussion.

As for the matter at hand? I've been to the Violence article before, but I followed this IP to the article minutes ago. And I see that it begins with a dictionary definition of violence and places the World Health Organization (WHO) definition of violence in the context of "less conventional definitions." There has been edit warring over this and over defining violence in other parts of the article. Considering that violence is a broad term (as is clear by the Wikipedia article), but it is especially relevant to the medical/health area, how to define the term in the lead sentence needs discussion.

I have noted on the article's talk page that I alerted this WikiProject (and will alert other WikiProjects that the talk page is tagged with) to the definitional matter. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 05:36, 26 August 2020 (UTC) Tweaked post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 06:49, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

It's now an RfC: Talk:Violence#RfC about the first and second sentences in the lead. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:28, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

very important topic/article--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:21, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Ethiopian hospital WP:MEDRS galore

I purge the following [4] from Arba Minch General Hospital, given those were all predatory journals and sources. Going to Pinging @Hiwot Abera here (who should read predatory journal, WP:IRS, and WP:VANPRED to familiarize themselves with these issues) so others can give additional advice on how to improve the article on a go-forward basis. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:03, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Note that this is a preliminary culling, there may be more. Some Dove Press journals are cited, and I know nothing of the Ethiopian Journal of Health Sciences save for it not being in Beall's list. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:06, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Workplace wellness

The Workplace wellness article has serious issues in terms of communicating what "workplace wellness" entails and in terms of what the research has shown regarding the public health impact of "workplace wellness" programs. If someone is looking for an article to fix, this is it. The page has had a "Written like an advertisement" tag since 2015, and I can confirm it's a big mess. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:34, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

yes it is, would take some time to go through it though--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 02:11, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Journal of Young Pharmacists

This RSN thread may be of interest to this noticeboard: WP:RSN § Journal of Young Pharmacists —PaleoNeonate – 11:49, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:59, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Consolidation of topics for the fat article?

Idealized representation of a molecule of a typical triglyceride, the main type of fat.

Eyes and comments needed on one editor's decision to have 6-8 individual articles on fats (saturated, unsaturated, polyunsaturated, fatty acids, etc.) brought under one consolidated article. Note this occurred with a poorly formatted WP:MERGE proposal (header or discussion not correctly formatted and unnoticed), with only one feedback participant, giving the proposer confidence to move ahead alone with major consolidation changes. Discussion here. Zefr (talk) 15:47, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:05, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Rockefeller University edits

WikiProject Medicine members are invited to review my request related to infectious disease work done at Talk:Rockefeller University. I welcome any suggestions to improve the proposed language. I'm an employee of Rockefeller University so I have a conflict of interest. I am happy to answer questions on the article's talk page. Thanks! KFenzRockefeller (talk) 16:26, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:43, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Discussion about moving the Gut flora article

Opinions are needed at Talk:Gut flora#Requested move 4 September 2020: Add "human" to the title?. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 06:05, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

• give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:18, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Merging of commitment with involuntary commitment

I think we should merge Involuntary commitment with Commitment (mental health). Commitment seems to be a new page split out from a sociology page. It mostly deals with the history of commitment in a number of countries. I'm advertising here to get some consensus.

--Talpedia (talk) 16:31, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

IDK about merging, both seem to be moderate-size articles...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 02:09, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

---@Ozzie10aaaa: Rename Commitment to history of commitment maybe? --Talpedia (talk) 22:37, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

it would be a better idea, however you should get more editor opinions--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:52, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

That's what I'm after :) --Talpedia (talk) 23:18, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Involuntary commitment is the better and more comprehensive article. And "Involuntary commitment" is the WP:Common name for that topic. Commitment (mental health) is mainly a history article. I can't even state "half a history article and half a criticism article" since even the criticism section focuses on history. In the article's edit history, Fgnievinski mentions‎ splitting that content from Institutionalisation. Also, I see Sundayclose in the Involuntary commitment article; so I just now pinged Sundayclose for their thoughts on this. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 06:00, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I'd vote for merging both voluntary and involuntary variants into Commitment (mental health). fgnievinski (talk) 06:30, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Fgnievinski and others, it should be discussed on one of the article talk pages. And merge templates should be placed on the articles. If that happens, I will start an RfC on the merge and advertise it since articles are often stuck with merge tags for a long time. I will also state now that I don't see a solid argument for not allowing Involuntary commitment to continue to be its own article just because of the history stuff in the Commitment (mental health) article. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 06:51, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Frozen: I've added merge templaltes to both articles, and started a discussion on Talk:Involuntary commitment#Merger_proposal where I have pinged interesting parties (PS. On other pages, I've seen you've requested to not be pinged so I'm not sure whether it's polite to ping your or not!). --Talpedia (talk) 16:19, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Flyer can always be found here, so pinging her (or me, or several other people) to this page is normally unnecessary. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:23, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I prefer not to be pinged to talk pages I'm watching. Since I participated in this short discussion, I would check back. That stated, it can be often that I don't keep up with what is going on here at WP:Med. That is because I'm busy with a lot of other things. So pinging me to a section here I haven't commented in can be a good idea.

On a side note: Merge templates don't go on the article talk pages. They go on the articles. So I will fix that. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 06:54, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Complete blood count at FAC

The FAC at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Complete blood count/archive1 needs a source review. Watchers of this page may be the best to do this. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 04:28, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

C&C, the editors here who know what a source check involves for a first-time nomination are already involved in the FAC. Perhaps you could spell out what is needed, else I will do it when I have time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:02, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

All right, guzzled coffee, hauled myself out of bed to a real computer to explain this. Here is some general info, that is not specific to medicine: Wikipedia:Guidance on source reviewing at FAC. There are three parts to a source check:

1. Source checks for first-time nominators are supposed to be more strict than for others, as we need to make sure there is no close paraphrasing, plagiarism, or copyvio. That part is accomplished by reviewing a random but representative check of several passages, and stating that no paraphrasing or copyvio problems were found. Once the regulars at FAC get to know a nominator, and know they don't have problems paraphrasing, this part is relaxed.
2. Top-quality reliable sources, in this case compliant with WP:MEDRS are used.
3. Citation formatting, must be consistent and correct.

The CBC FAC has cleared all hurdles except a source check; if anyone is able to do this, we/Spicy have a new and quite useful FA! Someone needs to indicate they have looked at formatting for correct/consistency, a random selection of sources that verify the text cited without paraphrasing or copyvio issues, and high-quality MEDRS-compliant sources are used. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:43, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Boghog, I know you've done some work with making citation formatting be consistent throughout an article. Would you like to look over this article? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:33, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

With a couple of exceptions, most of the cites are already formatted consistently. I will take a closer look. One thing that I noticed is that the shortened footnotes are not linked to the full citations. There is no requirement that they are linked, but it does make it easier for readers. Boghog (talk) 20:44, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Not required, and making it happen is a miserable experience for the editor! BTW, FAC is so backlogged that I fear this FAC could sit there for eons waiting for a source review, because other FAC reviewers are intimidated by medrs. Wish someone would do this, but I am already “too involved”. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:59, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Reminder: Harvnb citations are not required, and many editors hate them. WP:CITEVAR. Perhaps I should have added, when explaining the basics of a source review, that the citations already had a consistent and acceptable format; what is needed now is a check that high-quality sources are used and a random selection of text is checked to be sure that it verifies the text without copyvio or close paraphrasing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:49, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Since we are prioritizing editors over readers, I will not participate further. Boghog (talk) 08:58, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

The citations didn't have a consistent format, because some of them were unintentionally linking to archives and others were not. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:39, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

What we're valuing actually is "anyone can edit", because new editors have a much harder time with Harvrefs, and unless you have the script/gadget or whatever it is that I have installed (and I can't even remember which or where), many editors don't realize when they have introduced Harvref errors into articles. There are fans and detractors for each citation system, but it's important to note that Harvnbs are not required to be used when short-form citations are used to provide page numbers of lengthy journal articles or book sources. We need to get used to doing this since, for some odd reason, we medical editors have a (bad) custom of NOT providing page numbers as required for WP:V in citations for lengthy journal articles. Yet, that doesn't mean we have to move to difficult-to-use or difficult-to-see-when-they-have-errors Harvnbs for the short-form citation.

There is a consistent citation format at CBC; we still need a close paraphrasing and source-to-text integrity check of a random selection. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:31, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

If we medical editors have a bad custom of not providing page numbers for lengthy journal articles, then I think we could fairly charge non-scientific editors with having a bad custom of citing sources for isolated facts that can be found only in a single sentence, instead of citing sources for their main conclusions. If you are citing something like https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32895355/, the correct approach is to cite all ten pages for the main conclusion, not one page for some isolated factoid. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:41, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

That is also correct; both situations exist (specific page citations for some text, and entire journal articles for one overarching conclusion). The underlying principle is WP:V-- can the reader easily verify the cited text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:12, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Coronary

I've replaced wikilinks to the ambiguous term coronary where the specific meaning seemed obvious, but I left several others where I was uncertain. Would anyone like to check my work and perhaps improve some of the remaining links? Certes (talk) 16:10, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Here's the list:

• Pontifical Catholic University of Campinas
• Index of anatomy articles
• Pennsylvania Hospital
• Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial
• Community Hospital East
• Jaro Křivohlavý
• Annapoorna Kini
• Al Jalila Children's Specialty Hospital
• Social stress
• Ulf Landmesser
• JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions

WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:27, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

See also the discussion at WT:Disambiguation#Coronary. Mathglot (talk) 22:57, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Excited delirium

This article is written as promotional of a controversial term being used to describe something not listed in DSM-V. It is presumptious, using passive language to normalise a non-existant condition. It needs medically qualified oversight to render it objective/factual.

I have rewritten the intro to better describe the subject but the infobox and main body need a scalpel. Mark^Dask 13:36, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Interesting. I like your intro, and think it's quite balanced. I'm not sure something not being in the DSM-V is strong evidence that this doesn't exist, for example things like CPTSD, Moral Injury, and post traumatic embitterment disorder (which may all describe some similar underlying concepts) are not in the DSM but are recognised. But the fact that something is not in the DMS should certainly be noted, as you do here.

I'm actually quite interested in this topic, though am by no means an expert. I might have a dip into the literature this weekend. Shooting from the hip for now. I suspect this is a complicated and controversial topic. I imagine those in the psychiatric community would be inclined to label this psychosis / schizophrenia, if you read some of the literature of drug induced psychosis, you'll often come across the word "trigger" (as opposed to cause) the assumption being that there is an underlying cause - this links into the "chemical imbalance model of psychosis". If you dig into the literature you actually find that relapse rates following drug induced psychosis are far lower (assuming cessation of use) than psychosis without the presence of drugs, which adds some weight to the idea that there might be a diagnosis separate from psychosis/schizophrenia. Related to this is the concept of brief episodic psychosis (may have misremembered the name here).

It might be interesting looking at some literature to see how people distinguish this from psychosis - which is an obvious question that isn't really covered by the article

Some conterversies that cut across this "just happened once. I'm not taking your drugs" / "we are going to make you take drug"; "medical model" / "broken way of thinking from medicine", "psychology / psychiatry"; "individual autonomy / public safety", "safety of psychiatric drugs" --Talpedia (talk) 17:27, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Good luck. I tried to track that article about a decade ago. The struggle then was to avoid it turning into a laundry list of every person who died during a police encounter, with this subject mentioned in a newspaper article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:14, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Markdask and Talpedia, how are things going at that article? I see you've both made some edits. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:29, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Not sure I'm making it better! There was quite a nice systematic review in 2018 I'm trying to introduce some content from this into the article. --Talpedia (talk) 18:33, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I saw you've rolled back your initial, very extensive editing Talpedia. Perhaps best keep in mind the nature of the encyclopedia, which is to provide facts. While it is a fact that there exist many essays on the subject, it is not necessarily useful to "introduce content" from any given essay, or review. Wikipedia aint a magazine.

I'd very much appreciate it if you could link me to the review you refer to above before you introduce any further content, and we could discuss it. You can also email me from my homepage. Thanks - Mark^Dask 12:33, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

"very extensive editing" - I'm not sure this was very extensive. I found some content about the validity of the diagnosis added it, then realized there was a little duplicated, tried to deduplicate, and then decided it was time to regroup, because I needed to get more of a context of the whole article before making further changes - to avoid this https://www.thevintagenews.com/2019/01/04/artworks-destroyed/

"Perhaps best keep in mind the nature of the encyclopedia, which is to provide facts." Hmm, might want to be careful with that language there :p. The source I was using was this https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/acem.13330, a 2018 systematic review on excited delirium - which is closest we're going to get to facts on this topic (WP:MEDRS). While "introducing material" might not improve an article, having it be consistent with the most recent, and highest quality sources on the topic will - rather than older non-systematic reviews quoting consensus reports (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excited_delirium#cite_note-Vi2012-1), educational material (tertiary https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK546674/) or FUD implications about not being in diagnostic guidelines that can risk bordering on weasel words ("it isn't here, so it doesn't exist"). *Anyway*, the the tl;dr of the review was "exists, diagnosis vague and inconsistent, evidence sucks, probably distinct mechanism, more research necessary". But yeah, have a read and see what you think. I think the article should i) include that the fact that the review thinks EXD exists and "probably" is distinct a ii) the fact that the definitions used in the research are inconsistent i. I'd quite like to get a link to "validity of psychiatric diagnoses" in here as well, because this is part of the debate - unfortunately there aren't really pages on wikipedia on the topic :/ Talpedia (talk) 13:21, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I am a little concerned that the source might be a little "pro EXD" though. I spent a while looking from critique of the diagnosis but couldn't really find one with a little searching. Talpedia (talk) 13:28, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I first became aware of this term while working on the Death of Elijah McClain article. This man, really hardly more than a boy, was killed by the Colorado police every bit as much as George Floyd was but like most pre-Floyd deaths it went largely unnoticed. I have worked on enough of these articles that I have learned to hear police set up their alibi while the arrest is going on. If you read this article you can see how the police conversations set up a rationale to use both ketamine and a choke hold even though McClain was already cuffed. See this article "Medics in Colorado dosed 902 people with ketamine for “excited delirium” in 2.5 years, including Elijah McClain" [5] Gandydancer (talk) 16:38, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, I can see a little of the controversy there. Having one of the side effects of your syndrome being "death" is convenient if you kill someone. I would note that the use of Chemical restraint is accepted for basically all forms of agitation that put people at risk, so the existence or non-existence of EXD is not necessarily relevant for the choice to administer drugs (medical advice also says that chemical restraint is to be preferred to physical restraint in the documents I have read). I seem to remember the NICE guidelines mentioned, but did not advise the use of, ketamine. I think ketamine is faster acting than benzodiazapines / antipsychotics - I can't remember why they didn't recommend it - perhaps it had risks associated with it (ketamine is used in anaesthesia). I was struck by how, in this review, they suggested standard "chemical restraint" procedures without mentioning chemical restraint itself or referrinng to the literature onnthe topic. The use of chemical restraint is only advised after verbal deescalation has been attempted. Talpedia (talk) 17:35, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Translation task force forks

We have more than a thousand articles associated with the translation task force (link here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Translation_task_force). Full list here: [6]. These articles seem to be copied lead statements and most haven't been edited since creation eg here. This has come to my attention whilst doing my template survey (as many templates that have been discussed are used on those articles).

I have a number of concerns about these pages

• They are not maintained, meaning content can be inaccurate and out of date
• They appear to be part of our encyclopedia, when in fact they are unmaintained content forks
• They are indexed by search engines
• The forks are needless and redundant content forks (WP:REDUNDANTFORK) that are not temporary
• They are all titled "Simple", which is also a fork of the simple English Wikipedia
• They do not reflect our current consensus. For example Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Translation task force/RTT/Simple Desmopressin and the recent drug pricing discussions.
• Content is copied and pasted without attribution to original authors
• Maintaining these wastes a lot of valuable editor time (particularly the gnoming editors updating templates, citation styles etc).
• They are out of date, often by some years, which poses a risk to the communities and readers of the non English wikipedias where they are translated into.

With regard to Wiki med translation task force

It's clearly a very worthy goal and a great effort has gone in. However, the translation task force really seems to relate to WP MED foundation which is a meta organisation and should more appropriately be based there, in my opinion. Additionally, the large amount of extra wiki collaboration which, whilst wonderful, means that is very difficult for our local English Wikipedia project per se to be that involved short of relying on the people who are making those collaborative efforts. To become involved at the leadership level will clearly require speaking with specific editors and forming off-wiki relationships with those organisations. This gated community / ownership model is, I do not think, compatible with a local language based WikiProject, which in my understanding are generally flat in organisation, composed of volunteers, and have work that goes on relating to their local language.

I have some questions for everyone:

• Are we as a local EN WP still maintaining this task force?
• Should this content be moved to WP Med foundation on meta?
• What should we do with these articles? (Should we deindex them from search engines, mark them as historical, or just delete them?)

I'd like to hear what other editors think about this. --Tom (LT) (talk) 04:46, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately both the editors who were involved in this work have not been editing for months - Doc James and CFCF. JFW | T@lk 08:53, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

JFW, that isn't entirely true: James edited Ringer's lactate solution a week ago, and has made two dozen edits in August. He's also been active on Commons and Meta. I'm sure he is aware of this post by Tom (LT) and really should comment on it, since he created every single one of those 1200 pages and is still on the WMF board representing the English Wikipedia community.

As for "WP Med foundation on meta", the pages there have been snipped out and redirect now to Wiki Project Med Foundation on MD Wiki. The MD Wiki home page claims that wiki is "home to Wiki Project Med Foundation". The Meta pages are now just a shell. It very much appears that "Wiki Project Med Foundation" have moved off of Wikipedia to their own Wiki, and that the "Translation task force", which is a sub-project of that group, has moved too. As Tom notes, these "simple leads" do not reflect current community consensus on issues such as drug pricing, and it appears that one of the purposes of MD Wiki is to deviate from the Wikipedia community on areas such as drug pricing, drug dosage information, restrictions against -ND and -NC Creative Commons licences for media, and being open for anyone to edit. The MD Wiki site has now "limited visability of the article space" due to copyright problems with attribution, but if these "simple leads" have not yet been copied over, I'm sure they soon can be.

There seems to be no point to keep the content on en:wp. As Tom says, none of them were ever maintained wrt medical content but waste the time of wiki gnomes who go about fixing things and don't spot that these aren't actually articles on Wiki namespace. Readers may accidentally find them on Google. But most importantly, every single one of them is a copyright violation, including those created just last September. I suggest a deletion discussion is appropriate at this point. -- Colin°^Talk 09:46, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I have received an email from DocJames that confirms these articles aren't in use by the RTT anymore. I've nominated five for deletion here: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Translation task force/RTT/SimpleAmoxicillin/clavulanic acid. If that set is successful I'll propose a second batch deletion of the remainder. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:12, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Tom (LT), the MfD has now been closed as delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:49, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Premediated Chaos. I've created the nomination relating to all the articles here: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Translation task force forks. Is there an automated way to tag all the articles? --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:23, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser is probably the easiest way. There's a browser-based version atUser:Joeytje50/JWB, if you don't want to fuck around with downloading and learning a whole program. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:58, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this on, Tom (LT). Considering the response from James, would it not be more expedient just to go ahead and have your MFD list all of them?

More importantly, at some point, WP:MED might hold a conversation about examining and re-aligning our goals and priorities back towards a focus on content ON the English Wikipedia (it had become too focused on spreading content OFF the English Wikipedia, while content ON the English Wikipedia deteriorated). This might entail some restructuring of the main page of the Project at WP:MED, and the ongoing new look at WP:MEDMOS and WP:MEDRS; all three became a bit out of whack as WPMED became more externally focused, and there is much work to be done towards regaining a focus on improving English Wikipedia content, and reaching out to new editors, making our Project pages more friendly. Many of our FAs aren't, and I imagine most of our GAs aren't either, as too many topics went outdated as only leads were maintained for purposes of translation. I em encouraged by seeing good progress in all three of these directions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:58, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I am in a bit of a cautious Wikipedia mood at the moment and my overall feeling is that instead of expending lots of effort making large sudden changes, I prefer to expend an appropriate amount of effort to test the waters first.

With regard to your comments about EN WP, I do agree. A lot of really great collaboration has gone on, but I think the boundaries between off-ENWP collaboration (which really relates to WP MEDF) and our local EN WP has become blurred. WPMEDF does great work, and I think that there is absolutely room for both, but that having some clearer boundaries will also refocus discussion and attention locally on article space rather than the broader WPMEDF work.

Third comment regarding MEDRS and MEDMOS - as we've mentioned previously, I also think it would be worth making them leaner, and moving some content to explanatory supplements instead of the actual guideline text. Smaller guidelines are easier for editors to follow, and explanatory supplements are helpful to help newer editors understand the why and how a bit more. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:01, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

When large numbers of pages are involved, then a smaller discussion at MFD is often helpful as a starting point. It helps people get oriented to the subject without being overwhelmed by the number of links or worrying that they'll miss something.

I'm not sure what kind of goals this group might set. It's possible that creating and maintaining FAs is not where the group's main interest lies this year, especially with this pandemic going on. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:07, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

That's just the sort of thing we need to discuss :) Long story short, should I just run all the out-of-compliance FAs through WP:FAR and have them defeatured? I think not-- I'd rather see us build up resources and save a few of them-- particularly the high pageview ones, like polio and autism. But much more urgent is to get the WP:MED page to a point that it can actually be helpful to newbie editors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:24, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I recently read a book (Shockwave: Countdown to Hiroshima) which was good but didn't really say much about how the Bomb was designed. So I turned to the Wikipedia App on my mobile and spent a couple of hours reading articles on atomic bomb design. I learned about the two types that were developed and dropped on Japan, why one had plutonium and one had uranium, that a hydrogen bomb actually contains lithium and that most of the blast energy from it is from fission and not fusion, and so on. It was all fairly readable. Not perfect by a long way, and I don't think any were featured articles, though some may have been decades ago.

Wikipedia serves all sorts of purpose, from just answering a "What is X?" question to explaining to a parent about a disease that is going to dominate their family's life from now on. My wife looked up Mary Somerville after seeing her on a Scottish banknote, and ended up reading the whole article. I think we should aim to satisfy the reader's initial question that got them to English Wikipedia, and then to grab them and hold onto them to make them want to continue to read the article and related topics. I don't think our goal needs be more specific than that (e.g. 8 FAs per year). We can't force people to write about subjects they aren't passionate about, but we can create an environment where those that do are supported (e.g. peer review, copy editing, advice).

I don't think our aim should be to just continue dumping more low-quality factoids into articles just because we found a source that is free, online and contains 300 medical facts that we could add. That approach just leads to Wikipedia being a very low-quality resource for information, where people just read a few lines of the lead, or skim the article to try to find the information you were looking for among all the other random stuff, or read the other Google Search results that were written professionally. See Broken windows theory: an article that is just a random collection of facts about a topic just encourages more accumulation of random stuff and discourages quality writing. Like the student work, which is of variable quality, but worst when the students are adding more facts to an article that has already have several years of students dumping facts into it. We saw above a discussion from someone adding facts to an article full of unsourced or badly sourced facts and wondering why their fact got reverted and all the others kept. And I think the project got way way too focused on ensuring every article fit some straightjacket MEDMOS structure that our readers could not care less about. -- Colin°^Talk 10:52, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Does anyone think we might prevail if we suggested to the Wiki Ed people that they might re-orient student editors towards working on articles and lists supplied by us? That would be so much more helpful than cleaning up after students who drop less than useful content into articles on obscure niche topics. Imagine if we could ask a course to upgrade all the primary sources in article X to secondary, or write an epidemiology section for article Y, etc. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:43, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, it might be worth a try. Of the recent student edits I reviewed, Infant mortality is the one that has had six student classes in the last three years, and each class dump more into it. The coronavirus section is particularly desperate. That important subject needs the article quality improved and shortened. In contrast, the students took Epignathus from this stub to this modest article. The result isn't going to pass any award but is a very good first attempt. And while the topic might be very rare, it is going to be really important to some unfortunate family.

I have mentioned before in an email to someone, my thoughts on the Commons Photo Challenge. Sometimes people request topics that they feel Commons lacks images or concern some issue of great importance to them. Other times the topic is wide open, merely suggesting "rural decay" or "shadows" for example. The ideas are discussed and voted on and the person running it picks some each month. This month's challenge shows the difference in approach with themes on "Mobility aids for the handicapped" and "Nature's blues" and you can probably guess which topic will get the most and best entries and that people will really enjoy reviewing and awarding points for. I'm not saying PC shouldn't have a "mobility aids" challenge, but if it was all that sort of "worthy" approach, then the challenge wouldn't have been popular for seven years and attract a lot of newbies to Commons. I wonder if "infant mortality" is falling into the "worthy" trap, with mediocre results, and "Epignathus" was more of a serendipitous find.

I think the students (and their teachers) do need directed better to what to pick but should we be the ones choosing or would it be better to provide some guide on "How to pick an article subject for students" with general advice? -- Colin°^Talk 16:06, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I think we have tried over and over and over to improve our guidance to students and profs, and neither seem to read it. More is not better. Time to try something new.

Back to the subject of why I keep harping on FAs, is the autism example. Autism and Asperger syndrome are among our most highly viewed medical topics, and for over a decade after cleaning up a significant walled garden with Eubulides, we maintained the suite in good condition. Now the entire suite has fallen prey to advocacy editing again, and no one seems to care. When we lose Featured articles, the entire suite goes to heck. I don't keep bringing up FAs because they matter more than other content, but when the best quality and lead article at the autism suite goes, they all go. The entire suite is going back to the advocacy walled garden it was before Eubulides brought them to top status. WPMED has ignored the suite, and advocates are creating an UNDUE mess. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:13, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

If you care about page views, then we should be working on pandemic-related articles (and Suicide methods). Autism is #105 on the list of Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Popular pages. The article about COVID-19 in the US, which is #3, gets 10 times as many page views each day. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:27, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I'd rather encourage students to work on an obscure article than try to edit articles like Eating disorder or Abortion.

There's another science writing class starting, and I am almost tempted to ask them to work on cleaning up the country-specific COVID-19 articles, which need both updated sources and copyediting. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:19, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

"Highly viewed" is only one aspect of an article that might guide someone to focusing their attention and care. The list is a little bizarre with Stella Immanuel at #12 who only got an article on 29th July and notable for one weird event and will likely drop off the chart completely in September. Many of the top entries are more about people in the news or current affairs (coronavirus in the UK/US/India/etc) which is more politics than medicine. COVID-19 pandemic in the United States is really not imo a Wikimedicine article. All the sources are journalism. That article is more akin to 2020 United States presidential election and 2020 United States Postal Service crisis. Asperger syndrome is pretty high up at #27 for a disease that doesn't officially exist any longer. Lung cancer is at 994 yet is the biggest cancer killer in men and #2 in women. So, really, lots of these topics are "highly viewed". Btw I followed the link to User:West.andrew.g/Popular medical pages and this doesn't seem to be updated past Jan 2020. But the order of entries is very different, suggesting quite a "hot topic" effect on the list, which isn't necessarily the way an encyclopaedia should focus its effort. -- Colin°^Talk 17:29, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I thought I had removed the west.andrew popular list from our mainpage here, and added a more current list? The west.andrew version is no longer maintained. I have avoided our COVID debacle as much as possible; agree, they are mostly laypress, not medicine, and wish most of the lot could be deleted per NOTNEWS and all of the non-MEDRS content dealt with. I sincerely regret that any person is seeking COVID information from Wikipedia. Ack. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:40, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Apparently Wikipedia's coronavirus coverage has been widely praised. "Wikipedia has received numerous fawning headlines for dealing masterfully with the proliferation of coronavirus information." Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 01:24, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

very good --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:54, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I had a whole lotta commentary on that article, and now it won't let me see it ... paywalled after first view. Anyway, my summary was, not a lot of factual reporting, mostly regurgitating what his/her interviewees believe to be the case. Most of our COVID coverage is not medical, and most of it is not by medical editors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:08, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, wrt the science writing class, the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States is probably more of a social science topic or a politics topic with a medical flavour. It depends what the class is hoping to learn about. If they are hoping to write about something medicine or disease or biological science, using appropriate MEDRS or professional textbooks, then those are not the articles they want to touch. On the other hand, the top coronavirus medical articles (disease, virus, etc) can be a battleground that I wouldn't steer any newbie towards unless they want to have their Wikipedia experience abbreviated by a hot headed admin applying their idea of arbitration enforcement. I don't have a strong opinion about the coronavirus articles on Wikipedia. I think they need/attract the kind of editor with more time on their hands than I have. For what it is worth, I have never once felt the need to consult Wikipedia about anything coronavirus related. Like everyone else here, I have lived with it dominating our lives for nine months. I get reliable news (half an hour of BBC news at 10pm and subscription to The Guardian) which keeps me up-to-date with more than enough information. I have colleagues and friends to chat with about it and family members who are involved up to their eyeballs in a professional medical capacity. I suspect are probably kidding ourselves that those who get their news from Facebook and follow Trump on twitter are going to get properly educated about it on Wikipedia. It is important, but in terms of deaths in the UK, so is stroke and so is lung cancer, and both of those will continue to be important causes of death in 2021 and 2022 and 2023... -- Colin°^Talk 09:50, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I was thinking that if you want to write about biological subjects, then learning how to accurately and precisely explain the various statistics and epidemiological concepts would be a valuable educational experience. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:28, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

But learning to or assessing if a student can "accurately and precisely explain the various statistics and epidemiological concepts" doesn't require Wikipedia. At least with stroke and lung cancer, your incidence and mortality figures are likely to be accurate for longer than 24 hours. If you want student editors to feel like their contribution mattered, then steer away from "in the news" articles. In the UK, we have a saying that today's news is wrapping tomorrows fish and chips. -- Colin°^Talk 21:35, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Do we actually know what the goals of any of the profs are when they choose medical topics ? I wonder if Wiki Ed even does. At times, it's a prof pushing a personal agenda. At times, it's a prof using Wikipedians as TAs to teach students better writing skills. At times, it's unclear. Maybe we could get a better sense of how student medical editing could be less intrusive and more beneficial if Wiki Ed could give us some insight into the goals of the profs, other than getting a whole ton of free teacher assistants to do their correcting and instructing. It would be wonderful to see good student editing, and to see student editors stick around to learn from all the effort we have to put into correcting their articles. Keep your eyes on Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/University of Minnesota/Geomorphology (Fall 2020) by Awickert, who has three FAs and is an awesome Wikipedian. He could give us some ideas, but he is not by any means a typical prof ... he will be one of two highly prepared and knowledgeable profs to take on student editing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:04, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Covid-19 source

Greetings. Can you tell me if IHME is a reliable source? The Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation model has been used along with dozens of others by the US government to project outcomes. It has been widely cited and widely criticized. This is for COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. I did not find it listed in the archives here or at the reliable sources noticeboard. Thank you in advance. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:01, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

SusanLesch, I think the answer to the question you asked is "it depends". Is this maybe more of a WP:Due weight question than a verifiability one? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:42, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Maybe so. It is clearly not a source of fringe theory. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:51, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

"Due weight" is always a more complicated discussion than verifiability. It works best when everyone in the discussion has read all the sources, but there's no way to make editors do that.

Looking at the COI allegations on the talk page, I wonder whether the rejection of IHME might be a more suitable discussion for someone who hangs out at the Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:23, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice. Posted at fringe theories. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:42, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

SusanLesch- It depends on what you mean by reliable. Their projections are generally not considered *scientifically* reliable because they essentially do curve fitting which is a pretty naive approach that would never make it into a peer reviewed journal. They are however a legitimate organisation, it's just that they hired programmers and tried to get them to do epidemiology, instead of trying to get epidemiologists to make websites. Ah well :). If you're trying to solve a scientific question, I would not put them on the same level as any academic source.Mvolz (talk) 07:21, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

"Medline index is an essential requirement for reliability under MEDRS"

This claim is not supported by WP:MEDRS. Could perhaps someone help out in this conflict? Thank you. --Saidmann (talk) 15:56, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Where is that quotation from? MEDLINE indexing is not absolutely required, although its absence can be indicative of a less-than-top-tier source which might need be to used (if at all) with care depending on what text it is being cited for. Things like treatment efficacy, for example, would likely raise a WP:REDFLAG is this was the only source that could be found making a claim. Alexbrn (talk) 16:15, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

MIS-C name

I've proposed changing the page name of Paediatric multisystem inflammatory syndrome to Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children. Since I've no idea how controversial this suggestion may prove, I've also set out my reasoning in some rather tedious detail, along with a straightforward tl;dr. Opinions welcome here. 86.190.132.245 (talk) 14:49, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:55, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Corn allergies

If you're keeping up with your watchlist these days, please put Talk:Intravenous sugar solution#This page, as written, endangers the lives of patients with an IgE-mediated allergy to corn; and should be removed or edited. on your watchlist. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:18, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Ophranet as a source.

I was told that this wasn't a good source, any thoughts for this particular source?

https://www.orpha.net/consor/cgi-bin/OC_Exp.php?lng=EN&Expert=2138 — Preceding unsigned comment added by CycoMa (talk • contribs) 03:04, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

We have an idea of the "ideal" source for Wikipedia:Biomedical information that is medical school textbooks (and similar professional reference works), peer-reviewed review articles, and practice guidelines.

However, the real world is a bit more complicated than that. For rare diseases, Orphanet (which is sort of a spin-off of France's NIH-equivalent) can be a useful source for non-controversial content. It's also listed in Template:Medical resources, along with NORD, OMIM, and some similar sources, which probably explains why it's already linked in hundreds of articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:16, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Commented in the section immediately above this. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 16:00, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Major urinary proteins

Major urinary proteins is an aged (2010) Featured article, that has had a disputed statement since March. Is anyone able to address that, and the broader concern that the entire article may be dated and no longer in compliance with WP:WIAFA? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:48, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Artoria2e5, it looks like you added that tag. Do you know how to fix it? Or is this a case of different sources saying different things? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:43, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I will take a stab at it in the next 24h. According to UniProt, the MUPs are so similar that identification is quite hard, so it makes sense that some older sources got it mixed up. Just replacing the Mup17 word should do. --Artoria2e5 🌉 17:32, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

RfC of interest

• See Talk:COVID-19 pandemic#RfC re 10-fold COVID-19 mortality overestimation

This was not flagged as being on a medical topic, but as you can see it is. Alexbrn (talk) 21:31, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I wonder whether some editors involved might mean for it to be a political topic (i.e., whether people should trust scientists). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:50, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I suspect so. Alexbrn (talk) 03:17, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Ed: Abnormal Psych at Keene

Atomoxetine structure

Course: Keene State College/PSYC 345 Abnormal Psychology (Fall 2020)

Dates: 25 August – 4 December

Just getting started; only these assigned so far:

• Atomoxetine
• Body dysmorphic disorder
• Major depressive episode
• Phobia
• Separation anxiety disorder

Mathglot (talk) 08:51, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

thank you for posting--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:59, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Northern Arizona University

This one is huge already: Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Northern Arizona University/Writing in the Biological Sciences 006 (Fall 2020).

(Ian (Wiki Ed) Dengue fever is an FA. It is outdated, so if they plan to specifically deal with the outdated portions, good, otherwise ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:30, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

@Jimfbleak and Casliber: you might want to watch some of those articles, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:31, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

And there are many more Fall courses by the same professor; click on her userpage. Memdmarti one for you at Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Northern Arizona University/Writing in the Biological Sciences 011 (Fall 2020). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:53, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, SandyGeorgia! I left User talk:Jdp443 a message Diff. OK?Memdmarti (talk) 03:01, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Awesome! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:04, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi SandyGeorgia et al. Helaine spoke to the instructor about this when her students started assigning themselves obviously unsuitable articles, and they instructor said that they were doing this as part of their evaluation exercise. This is obviously not what the article assignment tool is for since (a) it makes it really difficult for me to catch the actual inappropriate assignments, and (b) since it tags pages, it's going to mislead people and waste volunteer resources. I should have posted here about the class (and I apologise for not thinking of that). I was off for a few days, and I'm playing catch-up.

It was already on my agenda to follow up with the instructor today or tomorrow. Thanks for the ping. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:48, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

(Fixing my broken ping @SandyGeorgia. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC))

Thanks, Ian (Wiki Ed); please note that I have also fixed a typo in this section heading, in case you have referenced it anywhere. I have reviewed some of this course's past work, and am concerned. It involves, once again, a professor who has not once, ever, edited a Wikipedia article, teaching large numbers of students affecting large numbers of articles. There are now eight courses from this professor listed for Fall 2020 at User:Asinger333; how many students overall will be involved, and once they get the article links corrected on their course pages, how many articles will there be? Is this institution switching to more online courses just as Wiki Ed staff has been reduced, and how can we handle this kind of volume with reduced Wiki Ed staff? I am already seeing more than WPMED participants will be able to help you with. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:33, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: Given our obvious limitations, we're supporting fewer classes, and asking quite a few instructors to have their students keep their work in their sandboxes, at least until it can be reviewed by me. Given the number of students in this class, and the fact that some of them were interested in working on medical topics, this is one of the classes we've asked to stay in sandboxes.

I expect that some students will make a few small edits in mainspace, but not their main contributions. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 02:24, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

@Ian (Wiki Ed): thanks for all the work you did to clean those out, but they are starting back ... see dengue fever. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:46, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Reproductive Medicine BSc Wikipedia assignment at University of Edinburgh

Hi, the University of Edinburgh are to run a Wikipedia research session for Honours students on the Reproductive Medicine BSc course on the mornings of 23rd and 30th September 2020. The course leaders have identified the following reproductive medicine topics they would like the students to work in group to research and help improve/add to Wikipedia:

• Horse ovary
• Artificial ovary
• Testis organoid (although potentially there maybe currently too little secondary literature)
• Luteolysis (in human, sheep and cow)
• Bisphenol S (page exists (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisphenol_S) but could be expanded: comparison to BPA could be made more clearly and the extent of its role as an endocrine disruptor can be expanded, a quick search has brought up at least 6 review articles.
• Endogenous ovine jaagsiekte retrovirus (new page to link to Jaagsiekte retrovirus)

If anyone has time to comment on these selections just to review they would make sense or have suggestions about the approach we are taking and the best way of curating this content also then do let me know. Many thanks, Stinglehammer (talk) 10:17, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for working to build new content. Some comments regarding the new page proposals; regarding:

• Horse ovary, why not build a section in Ovary#Other animals then split if the page becomes unbalanced?
• Testis organoid, why not build a section in Organoid#Types, as is the case for Gut organoid and Lingual organoid
• Endogenous ovine jaagsiekte retrovirus, why not build on Jaagsiekte sheep retrovirus?

Klbrain (talk) 23:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks Klbrain, have passed this feedback on! All very useful pertinent points. Cheers, Stinglehammer (talk) 14:46, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Hope I'm not stating the obvious, but have you looked at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Education_program/Educators ? --Talpedia (talk) 16:25, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

yes, assuredly. In addition to above pages we also are looking at working on the following:

• Endothelin 2 - Currently very short page - to be expanded - secondary literature available.
• Testicular Tissue Cryopreservation - suggest generating a new page for this, as has been done for "oocyte cryopreservation", "ovarian tissue cryopreservation, and "embryo cryopreservation".
• Nanos Gene Family - Currently no page.
• Reproductive toxicity – there is a wiki page but it could do with considerable updating/expanding.
• Germ Cell Migration - there is some information on this under the ‘germ cell’ wiki page but there are a lot of citations missing and this could be expanded upon quite considerably, possibly in its own wiki page?
  Any thoughts on these suggested pages to work on are very welcome. Thanks, Stinglehammer (talk) 14:46, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Couple more suggestions too...

• Resumption of Meiosis - either stand-alone or under Meiosis
• Expand the 'Fertility' subsection of the Centriole page. Currently just two sentences. Any thoughts on above then let me know, Stinglehammer (talk) 15:17, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Hyperandrogenism

Hyperandrogenism is a term medically applying to people with female gonads, not male ones.

However it seems the IOC/IAAF appropriated the term in order to hide the fact that they had athletes with male gonads & DSDs competing in their sport:

https://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/CAS_Award_-_redacted_-_Semenya_ASA_IAAF.pdf

• The DSD Regulations do not stigmatise athletes with DSD. The DSD Regulations stress the importance of strict confidentiality. These confidentiality provisions are effective. The IAAF dealt with ... cases under the Hyperandrogenism Regulations and at least ... further cases prior to that. The IAAF has never leaked any information about any of those cases; the identity of the athletes, their nationality and the number of cases all remain unknown outside the IAAF.
• The DSD Regulations expressly and emphatically stress that they do not connote any judgment or questioning of an individual’s sex or gender identity. They are also careful not to spell out that they apply only to 46 XY individuals with fully functioning testes.
• The DSD Regulations do not exclude affected individuals from competing in the female category.

This coinage was first used by the IOC/IAAF in 2011: [7]

Since 2011 coverage of hyperandrogenism has overwhelmingly focused on XY individuals with testes in sport, i.e. 'political hyperandrogenism'.

However the term does not seem to be in medical use, because there is nothing 'hyper' about individuals with testes having high testosterone levels, it's perfectly normal. I.e. the usage was to try to protect the secrecy of the fact that athletes were XY,SRY+ in women's sport.

Any comments on how to deal with this ? Sumbuddi (talk) 13:31, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Do you think that hyperandrogenism in sport is a separate subject? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:44, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

They aren't really related. As noted 'Hyperandrogenism is a medical condition characterized by high levels of androgens in females. Symptoms may include acne, seborrhea (inflamed skin), hair loss on the scalp, increased body or facial hair, and infrequent or absent menstruation.'

OTOH, 'hyperandrogenism in sport' is merely a euphemism for 46,XY DSD. The IAAF did originally include CAH 46,XX in its definition of 'hyperandrogenism' to try and obfuscate, but that was deleted in the final version, so there are no hyperandrogenic women (in the usual sense, e.g., PCOS or similar) included in the scope of this.

At any rate the article is confusing in that the article has been written to describe normal 46,XX biology, but then adds the euphemistic sense without explaining that hyperandrogenism may also refer to a 46,XY DSD, and this seems misleading. Sumbuddi (talk) 16:41, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Would you like to propose a WP:SPLIT on the article's talk page? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:01, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

First Aid

A long, long time ago, there was a WikiProject called WP:WikiProject First aid. In 2008, this project became redundant and users were redirected to the most likely success, WikiProject Medicine. There are hundreds of First Aid related articles on Wikipedia, and most of them are simply categorised under the default category for WikiProject Medicine, and sometimes the EMS task force. I was wondering if anyone has ever considered creating a first aid task force? Just an idea. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 17:43, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

its worth considering, thank you for posting--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:26, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

We talked about it in 2008. One of the founders of WikiProject First aid objected to a merge. I don't think it's been considered since then. (For anyone interested in Wikipedia's history, that experience helped us improve the site-wide guidelines on merging WikiProjects.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:02, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Routes of administration/dosage form template

Hello,

I would appreciate input at Template talk:Routes of administration, dosage forms regarding my proposed reorganization of the template, as members of this WikiProject may be interested in said template. Thank you in advance, -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 06:07, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:08, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Carica papaya as treatment for dengue fever

See Talk:Dengue fever#Treatment: Papaya Leaf Juice. This is a Featured article that is outdated. @Spicy and Ajpolino:; I can't access all the articles, and @WhatamIdoing: I can't evaluate some of the journals in terms of the quality required for FA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:02, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Since I was pinged, I took a look but unfortunately I don't seem to have access to Sobhia (2019) either. Spicy (talk) 23:15, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I updated the entry with references from 2020. Jaredroach (talk) 17:42, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:ENB § Students editing controversial topics

 You are invited to join the discussion at WP:ENB § Students editing controversial topics. Mathglot (talk) 11:23, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

MEDMOS abuse

It is with regret that MEDMOS is again being mis-cited as a rational to arbitrarily re-order sections in articles. MEDMOS states "The following lists of suggested sections are intended to help structure a new article or when an existing article requires a substantial rewrite. Changing an established article simply to fit these guidelines might not be welcomed by other editors." Today the cosmetic/fashion article Moisturizer was re-ordered with "MEDMOS" given as the edit summary. MEDMOS has always discouraged reordering article sections in existing articles. Further, the vast majority use of moisturiser is as an everyday skincare rather than medical treatment. The reorder didn't make any sense, with the article's present form since a rewrite in 2018 having a "Description" section up-front. The article isn't great, but it requires more effort to improve it than just reordering and renaming section headings. The MEDMOS sections are intended to guide (not require) authors when writing new material, and not to authorise editors to chuck the article content in a tumble-dryer and randomly reorder things. Please, lets not have any more of this disruptive and non-consensus approach to editing. Editors making major changes to articles, such as a reorder, should first seek consensus on the article talk page. -- Colin°^Talk 20:37, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Colin! Is the added section separation at Diff OK? -- Memdmarti (talk) 16:46, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

The historical abuse of MEDMOS was and continues to involve one or two editors re-ordering sections in order to "conform" to MEDOS, when in fact MEDMOS says not to do that. If you think, while working on article content, that a new section is required or content could be split into two sections, that seems like normal healthy article development, and you are welcome to use the MEDMOS sections as "suggestions". Whether the content at Primary ovarian insufficiency that is was inside "Causes" is better inside "Mechanism" is a difficult question. It seems there is a bit of overlap and maybe it is not all "mechanism". I don't know if someone has some example articles with Causes/Mechanism sections on similar kinds of disorders, that would guide you better on where to stick the content. -- Colin°^Talk 10:41, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Colin! It seems like a natural what (Causes) and how (Mechanisms) separation to me. I will develop that unless someone has a different suggestion. SandyGeorgia will review this when I let her know it is ready. I probably have another week or so to go. Dan -- Memdmarti (talk) 02:01, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Article alerts

I thought I'd take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Article alerts. The WP:AFD section is usually just a bunch of WP:BLPs. However, today there's also Venous needle dislodgement, which claims to be a dialysis problem, and multiple hospitals. I've been surprised by the persistence of one editor in nominating hospitals for deletion; he doesn't seem to be able to find lengthy sources with a web search. Last time, it was a thousand-bed teaching hospital in a non-English-speaking country. This time, it's 425-bed level 2 trauma center in Florida. I'm sure that on occasion the hospital administration would prefer that nobody paid attention to them, but I've never yet seen a modern hospital, even a quite small hospital, that didn't meet the WP:GNG if only one knows where to look (e.g., the local newspaper).

WP:MED/AA has a long list of MFD's in it at the moment, but if you scroll past that, you'll find a few things that may interest you, including Talk:Coronavirus disease 2019#Requested move 16 September 2020 and Talk:Mitigation of COVID-19#Merger discussion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:20, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Commented on the VND AFD since I had time to do a quick search. I don't feel comfortable taking part in hospital AFDs since honestly I see no reason personally for individual hospitals to have articles unless they're major (ex: Houston Methodist, Cedar Sinai NYC, St Jude, etc)... instead having articles on hospital organizations/regions... but I get that Wikipedia tries to include more than paper encyclopedias so I won't push my view on that. Regards, -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:41, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

The better hospital articles tend to focus on institutional history, rather than services currently provided. One that's up for deletion was founded in the 19th century because a pedestrian ended up with a broken leg after being run over by a horse-drawn wagon, and the leading citizens decided that they needed a local hospital. Quite a few were started by religious organizations. A few hundred hospitals' original locations are on the National Register of Historic Places. There's always the odd hospital associated with a criminal story. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:20, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Peanut allergy contradiction

Peanut allergy currently suggests in the Peanut allergy#Timing of exposure section In infants with a family history of peanut allergy, consuming peanut proteins at 4 to 11 months old has been shown to reduce the risk of developing an allergic response by 11-25% but then in the very next section A 2010 systematic review of clinical research indicated that there is insufficient evidence for whether maternal peanut exposure, or early consumption of peanuts by children, affects sensitivity for peanut allergy. Technically infants aren't children under some definitions but I don't think this is what's being said. I imagine the 2016 consensus communication outweighs a 2010 systematic review so the children part should just be deleted, but I don't have enough experience with MEDRS to say for sure. BTW, how is stuff like Bamba (snack)#Peanut allergy normally handled? I guess it's less of an issue now with the 2016 consensus, but it seems to me like it could be a problem before that given that although it's only describing a single result (as it mentions), it could lead the the mistaken assumption that this single result was conclusive although the 2010 systematic review didn't find that. Even now, the ten fold difference which while to be fair could apply so some particular subgroup, is I assume poorly supported (since it's only this single study) given the consensus was only a 11-25% reduced risk. Nil Einne (talk) 22:52, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Reading more carefully, the systematic review is said to be about sensitivity but the 2016 statement about risk so maybe these aren't so clearly contradictory although the abstract suggest to me we're probably misleading what the 2010 review found. Still even if we keep both in entirety, I think they probably need to be combined in a single section at least the sections renamed to make it clearer what the focus is. Likewise if they are contradictory but neither is strong enough to over-ride the other so we present them as differing views. Nil Einne (talk) 00:35, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

The 2016 statement is also about families with a history of peanut allergy, whereas the other claims to be about any family. I'd generally recommend looking for a third "tie-breaker" source. If there aren't any, then I'd prefer the more recent consensus statement instead of the decade-old systematic review, but I'd write the statements narrowly. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Looking for COVID-19 sources

I re-wrote the symptoms section of Coronavirus disease 2019 a while ago. I'm willing to do another section, but I'm having trouble settling on a section, and there are So. Many. Sources. Does anyone have any recommendations? It was super helpful last time to get a short list of good reviews. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:23, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

I recommend UpToDate. You'll typically need to access it through a library that maintains a paid subscription. Most Medical School Libraries have one. Jaredroach (talk) 16:32, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Also (and freely available) a good source is the WHO guidance: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/clinical-management-of-covid-19 "Clinical management of COVID-19"

And another really good source is the Google doc that is crowdsourced by frontline (as in on the front of the battle, not the PBS show) doctors: FRONTLINE COVID-19 GUIDE https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_vORuu9WRli5rfAOtWpzDjrC-TJ4a0amMjVxio2iqJQ/edit?fbclid=IwAR2dTMNaVNKA584ygG3GbJQDAQ1loiRwLC-kTQifoBRZ6mQqIlnEJH0um-8

Jaredroach (talk) 21:41, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Help needed at Step aerobics

I just reviewed the Step aerobics article at DYK. It's worthy topic and the article creator has done a lot of good work covering its historical aspects, but the section on its health effects needs to be completely rewritten from WP:MEDRS-compliant sources. The article creator isn't experienced with medical topics, so we're looking for someone to replace the health effects section. It doesn't need to be long or comprehensive, just MEDRS-compliant. The contributor would get DYK credit as well. Thanks! John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 19:23, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

If anyone wants to have a go at this, the three most recent reviews are PMID 28715061 (pregnancy), PMID 23914499 (includes multiple styles of aerobics), and PMID 21944303 (apparently, it's good for bone mineral density). WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:40, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Congratulations

... to Ajpolino on the new toolkit! Now, how to get a humble person to mention this in the next WP:MED newsletter ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:36, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Congratulations Ajpolino. I don't know you well enough to have voted at the RFA, but it seems like you sailed through it. -- Colin°^Talk 14:18, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Global Certification Commission

I just expanded/created Global Certification Commission. Can I get a sanity check before I nominate it for DYK? Thanks in advance! --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 07:40, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Nice find. It seems there are lots of gaps in our coverage of global public health infrastructure here. Glad to see this headed to DYK. Ajpolino (talk) 14:04, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Ajpolino, congrats on your recent "promotion". I have nominated at Template:Did you know nominations/Global Certification Commission --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:09, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Merging Pages

Upon reviewing 2019 Philippines measles outbreak, 2019–2020 New Zealand measles outbreak, 2019 Tonga measles outbreak, and 2019 Samoa measles outbreak, I am wondering if we could merge these 4 pages together into: Pacific Island Measles Outbreak 2019 or merge into the already existing 2019 measles outbreaks. These pages have a significant amount of overlap/interconnected events and merging the pages would cut down on repetitive info. I can take point on either option, I just want feedback before committing. Etriusus (talk) 19:47, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Etriusus, I support a merge, either way you want to do it. Natureium (talk) 20:14, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

That sounds good to me too. Ping me if you'd like a hand enacting it. Thanks! Ajpolino (talk) 20:25, 24 September 2020 (UTC)