Talk:Interstitial cystitis/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Biosthmors (talk · contribs) 20:53, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I say this article does not yet meet the good article criteria. It appears to need a cleanup and updating in sourcing. Right now I see the sentence "A Harvard University study concluded, 'the impact of interstitial cystitis on quality of life is severe and debilitating' " in the lead. Although, there shouldn't be a reason to name drop "Harvard" like this (see WP:MEDREV). That paper is from 2000 and is a primary research paper. Per WP:MEDDATE, we try to use recent review articles if possible, and I see it has been cited by three review articles. The most recent is PMID 19548999 "Clinical guidelines for interstitial cystitis and hypersensitive bladder syndrome" (2009). That would be a good source to rewrite content with. And then we have "A Harvard Medical School guide...", which sounds like further name dropping and it is cited to a teriary source, which is not ideal in this case. A clinical practice guideline is one type of secondary WP:MEDRS and review articles are another. These should be cited for most of the content in a medical article (when they can be located, and it appears they can be in this case). I have tagged the article as needing WP:MEDRS, because it cites questionable sources such as old primary research. For example, the statement "Neuromodulation can be successful in treating IC/BPS symptoms, including pain" is cited to a 1994 paper. I encourage the nominator to work on the article and contact me if help identifying secondary sources would be helpful. If the nominator would like to work on this article for the next few weeks, I can leave this review open. Biosthmors (talk) 20:53, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Biosthmors, I'll work on replacing the old primary/questionable sources with newer, more reliable review articles to improve the article's quality. I appreciate your leaving the review open. I think with some more work it can reach GA status after these improvements are made. Also, the sentence about neuromodulation's actually from a 2003 paper but the sentence immediately after it about TENS is from 1994. I'll see if I can find something more current. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:20, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments for improvement

The history section should be prose and sourced to secondary sources. It's OK for good articles to have some short sections, so perhaps three sentences is all that is needed here. Right now there are all these [53], [54], etc. things that make no sense and look like an old copy/paste job from a former version. Biosthmors (talk) 17:10, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be an excessive amount of sections in the body of the article, which makes for a long table of contents. See Dengue fever for an idea of how many subsections are generally acceptable. There is also a tendency for the article to have one paragraph sentences, which is not ideal. Can we consolidate things into more prose/paragraphs? Biosthmors (talk) 23:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've dealt with the excessive amount of sections in the body of the article. I think you'll find that it's much better now in that regard.I've fixed up the history section as well though I haven't found secondary sources for that just yet. If you have any suggestions for some I'll be sure to put them in right away but for now it's at least in prose format now. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:41, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also had another thought for some things that might improve the article (that I don't know how to do and I don't think would be required for good article status but may be useful for after that). I was thinking that adding pictures of a cystoscopy with hydrodistention showing Hunner's Ulcers might be a good addition to the article and perhaps a picture showing the urothelium or a less than optimal urothelium conceptually for IC. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 04:48, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 05:01, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:LEAD currently contains a paragraph discussing how the condition is disabling. I don't understand why this is necessary. Trim? I think this it is currently WP:UNDUE and against WP:MEDMOS. Biosthmors (talk) 05:01, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The lead also talks about the epidemiology in this way: a 2009 study said X. a 2010 study and y, and a 2012 study said z! But this is a poor format. We are an encyclopedia and we are based off of WP:SECONDARY sources, not primary sources. We state the best evidence without trying to give a quasi-historical play by play of recent primary studies. This is also undue in my opinion. Biosthmors (talk) 05:01, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sentences such as " In 2005, understanding of IC/BPS improved dramatically and these therapies are now no longer used." are historical statements. They belong in the history section, not the medication section, where we should summarize the most current WP:MEDRS, in my opinion. Biosthmors (talk) 05:01, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, someone else recently added the 2012 RICE epidemiology stuff. I'll work on shortening the lead to the current understanding/epidemiology and keep it to a minimum moving the rest of that to the history section (I agree that the history section is a more suitable section for information like this or an epidemiology section instead). Any secondary source recommendations? Are you referring more to reviews instead of using primary papers as they did? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 05:06, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This issue seems to be one that develops constantly on Wikipedia. Can we pilot something new? If I single out a primary paper, and you need to see if any reviews have cited it, can you start a new section at my talk page (for each primary study) and mention the study either by its PMID or doi? Then I'll reply there, letting you know about what has cited it. Or does that sound too convoluted? Thanks! Biosthmors (talk) 05:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That does seem a tad convoluted. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by piloting something new. I'll look around (and if you find anything let me know on my talk page or here) for secondary articles, reviews, etc. to replace some of those primary references. In the meanwhile, I have shortened the lead, made some grammar changes, and reformatted those sentences from the In this study: format to more prose-like format. Let me know if the current version looks better, same, worse, etc. Also, I'm not 100% clear on wikipedia policy on primary papers, do we need to remove all of them in favor of secondary sources? Or is it okay to leave some of them and just try and balance it more in favor of reviews than is currently the case? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 05:24, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. As I interpret WP:MEDRS, (see in particular WP:MEDREV), in general, we should remove every citation to a primary study that has already been cited by a review article. You can see deep vein thrombosis as an example. Nearly every reference is either to a review article or a clinical practice guideline. And please allow me to be more straightforward. =) I'm trying to shift some of the research burden onto you. I shouldn't have to identify any secondary sources to perform a good article review in an ideal nomination, but I am offering to help. In return, I expect you to make it easy for me. If you give me a doi or PMID, I will look. Do you want to post the doi or PMID here, or at my talk page? Please make a separate comment/section for each primary study, whether here or at my talk page. (FYI, review articles are just one type of secondary source, but they are a favored type per WP:MEDRS.) Biosthmors (talk) 05:54, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing, now that I'm clear on exactly what a secondary source is from wikipedia and that reviews are preferred and now that I know that we pretty much want to remove all primary sources that we can, I'll get right on that but it will take me a little bit of time. I'll be sure to send you sources on your talk page for you to give me the okay. I'll try and start substituting primary papers with review articles. I'll make it easy for you =) TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:02, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Just leave me a doi or PMID, and I'll reply with the doi of all the reviews that cite that study. I take it you don't have access to Web of Science? Because if you do, then you could do it! Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 16:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't have the Web of Science thing you mentioned (and unfortunately I don't have time to learn it atm but it does look like an awesome tool). I'll be sure to leave you DOIs or PMIDs or a link as you've asked. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:55, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah it's pretty easy! When you identify an article, it says how many times it has been cited, and then one can just click on that number then select and click again to filter for reviews. Biosthmors (talk) 19:56, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A numbered list (Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lists#Numbered_lists -- ignore the html box) could be done for the "six step" guideline portion. However, first line, second line, etc. suggests order of prominence, while "six step" sounds like all things should be done in succession. Clarify by saying something like, "the following six options are suggested, with lower numbers indicating more preferred treatement options"? Biosthmors (talk) 19:16, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll work on modifying that list. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 19:21, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the list looks clearer now and conforms to the appropriate list format. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 23:20, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I closed this review due to being short on time with the consent of the nominator[1] and under the expectation this article will go to peer review, get comments, and then be resubmitted for GA status. Biosthmors (talk) 18:35, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]