Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sleep/archive1

Sleep

Fantastic article! Satisfies all FAC criteria (neutral, well researched, factual, referenced). I really believe that it covers the topic sleep very well. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:58, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No. It doesn't. Request opinion of sleep experts.Jclerman 13:08, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It appears I was premature here. This should be sent to peer review. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:07, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Refer to peer review.

A lot of unexplained jargon.
Lead is too short.
Has numerous (too) short sections.
Should have a summary of the article on dreaming in a section with a link to the main article.
A lot of the terms in the "see also" section need to be discussed in the article itself; not comprehensive. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:12, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Medicine Collobaration of the Week might be interested in taking this one on.--nixie 01:52, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article isn't there yet, by any means. But please take another look. Substantial changes have been made since this (premature) nomination was entered. Except perhaps for the back-and-forth on the caffeine issue, which may have been resolved already, I don't see that it needs peer review at this point. Sfahey 09:46, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The caffeine issue has not a verifiable peer-reviewed reference. Jclerman 12:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See the Discussion page. Jclerman 03:16, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Now I see how contentious that seemingly minor point had become. I rewrote the claim in perhaps a more palatable way, and put it in a footnote, which I believe is appropriate in the English wikipedia. Parenthetically, there IS some rationale for serving coffee at bedtime(the use of caffeine in infants) and while it for sure wouldn't work for me I see no reason to question that it is done. My efforts to translate the relevant paper myself were unsuccessful. Sfahey 04:25, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As above, request reviewers to give this article another look. I believe the objections have largely been addressed. Sfahey 04:25, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The objections I had 3 days ago have not been addressed. I still think this would benefit peer review. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:07, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, the lead has been rewritten, over half of the old "see also" list is now eliminated and incorporated into the article, and the only "short" section is the one on "measuring sleep." This could be merged with the "Physiology" section, but since I was the only critic who chose to work on, rather than simply disparage, this nomination I didn't get as far as doing that, or writing a new section on "Dreams". Sfahey 01:29, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More comments:
If the Caffeine Note refers to: <<(CoffeeInElderlyDe In verbatim, this source states under "Sonstiges": "Coffee: Helps in many elderly people because of the decrease in respiratory rate". German text: "Evtl. Kaffee: hilft bei vielen älteren Menschen wegen des nächtlichen RR-Abfalls")>>, the German quotation is NEITHER from what is understood to be a "paper" NOR it has been peer-reviewed: it is just a list of points without references, thus not a "verifiable source." See numerous entries in the Discussion page.Jclerman 12:02, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The need for a close scrutiny of the verifiability and reliability of sources on which the article is based has been emphasized by the comments on an edit by "user 80.129.140.252" who stated: "(→Notes - german 'RR' is Riva-Rocci (method of measuring blood pressure, used as synonym with blood pressure), not respiratory resistance!)". See full discussion of this point in the article's discussion page which contains numerous exchanges about the caffeine issue and its repercussion on other web articles. Jclerman 20:24, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, to reach a consensus text a detailed verification of its statements, based on reliable sources, and the opinion of sleep experts will be needed. Jclerman 20:24, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that is what I have been doing for the last few months. I have been working on a grant for the last couple of weeks... So I have been busy, but I have put a lot of effort into this article. When I found it, this article was a shambles. I have added properly referenced materials, and useful information. Unfortunately, whenever I remove less relevant information, it turns into an edit war (just look at the discussion page). While some of the "fat" on this page does need to be trimmed, that is almost an impossibility in this format. It is difficult to keep a page like this clean when people start posting their own unsubstantiated pet theories, and hold on to them until the bitter end.However, I will continue adding and subtracting based on what is happening in the field (which I am a part of) because of the time I have already invested. Sleep is an issue that few people know much about, and, as a sleep researcher, I feel it's part of my job as a responsible scientist to direct the public to information that reflects the popular consensus in the field.

MrSandman 03:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment re above issues: I still do not understand why this point seems so controversial. This is a tempest in a teapot. User "Keimzelle" has presented:

1. A (sloppily) translated quotation supported coffee at bedtime.

2. A personal report from a German nursing home confirming this.

Additionally, there is a physiological rationale (caffeine's demonstrable ability to stimulate respiration) for this unusual practice. As for a documented source, how about the German wikipedia article on Sleep. In its "Pharmacology" section the authors describe the paradoxical benefit of caffeine in the elderly:

Es klingt paradox – in der Pflege wird Kaffee manchmal gebraucht, um das Ein- und Durchschlafen zu fördern. Besonders bei älteren Menschen hilft das Koffein, den Abfall der Atemfrequenz zu bekämpfen.

This German translation is affected by the loss in translation pointed out above under "more comments"; plainly stated: the original German cited means "blood pressure" incorrectly translated as "Atemfrequenz = respiratory rate".Jclerman 15:28, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is not to suggest that this article is up to "F.A." quality. But it is a lot closer than the current flock of naysayers insist. Sfahey 02:12, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]