Wikipedia:Peer review/Neurocysticercosis/archive1

Neurocysticercosis

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to bring it to FA status. I've gotten input from a number of editors and I'm going to be pinging some specific editors who I've reached out to in the past or who I know are great in this area so I'm sorry if I ping anyone who is not interested or does not have the time. Pings: @AirshipJungleman29, Gen. Quon, Jimfbleak, SchroCat, Graham Beards, Gerda Arendt, Ajpolino, and WhatamIdoing: Thanks in advance, IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 21:45, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added to the FAC peer review sidebar. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:42, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WhatamIdoing

Thanks for your work on this.

Links: This is a very technical subject, with lots of unfamiliar anatomical terms. It needs more links than usual. We probably also need links to articles that don't exist yet. I've added some redlinks that you might be able to find suitable redirect targets for. In other cases ("lentil lectin purified glycoprotein (LLGP) enzyme-linked immunoelectrotransfer blot (EITB) assay"?), perhaps we could beg that medical class to create the articles for us. If you dislike any of my suggested links, then I am trusting you to just remove them. I suspect that the link in "human and porcine mass chemotherapy" is pointed at the wrong page.
- I'm tackling each of your points one by one so this might mess up the format a bit but oh well. I'll check out what med schools are doing wiki projects rn and see if I can talk them into clearing up some of those redlinks. As for the chemotherapy thing I was not really aware of another page that would be a more appropriate target. Mass chemotherapy if it existed (can be added either way tho) may be a more appropriate target but I'm not sure. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 01:44, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wording: Most of this is quite good (i.e., I understand what you're saying, and nothing sounds obviously wrong to me), but I don't love the line "the methods used to diagnose it can be problematic". Does this mean they're dangerous? Unethical? Or is it redundant with "hard to access"? Also, the classification sub-section says there are two types and gives three bullet points. The abbreviation NCC is used only in captions until the ==Prevention== section.
- The source does use the word "problematic" but based on what they write elsewhere I think they are trying to imply that the tests used aren't always reliable, unless anyone finds an issue with this I'm going to change the wording to unreliable instead. As for the classification portion this is a result of the source having slightly confusing wording. I've changed it to "two main subtypes" as parenchymal and extraparenchymal are the two most common presentations but the other category is still worth noting. If you have a better idea as to how to approach this please do let me know. The abbreviation thing was me getting lazy while expanding the article. I'll replace NCC with the full term since it is what I used throughout the majority of the article. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 01:44, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Diagnostic criteria: There are copyvio problems around (some) diagnostic criteria. I have checked none of the sources, but I would like to see this written, to the greatest extent feasible, in your own words. An exact, word-for-word copy of the official source is not always best.
- I do remember having a convo somewhere with someone saying that stuff like diagnostic criteria is okay to be used word for word however I will try to reword some of it. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 01:44, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources: The second paragraph of ==Epidemiology== probably needs some refs duplicated. The 1997 (image) source doesn't concern me, but I see several sources from 2014. Ideally, as we approach the start of 2025, almost all of the sources would be from 2020 or more recent. Is there a more recent version of any of these sources available? Any recent source you wished for but couldn't find a copy of?
- I added the ref after every figure or number, may have overdone it but I'm sure someone will tell me if I have. As for the map, there's two main reasons why I have an older one used. Mainly it's that I couldn't find any newer sources that had maps that could be used on Wikipedia (copyright reasons) and because I don't remember many other sources having maps for the epidemiology part but I may have missed that. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 01:44, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One thing I'd like to know is, if "intervention programs can take decades", and de-worming is a preventive treatment, how often would de-worming need to happen? I've read about some annual de-worming programs (e.g., the traveling health program de-worms entire villages once a year, rotating through the different villages). Would that be often enough?
- While this is an interesting question that I to would love the answer to, I'm not sure if an answer exists yet. It was pretty hard to find non-primary studies on prevention. There unfortunately (at least to my knowledge) there haven't been many large prevention programs for NCC. The main ones I included in the prevention section. I'll see if I can find anything on this tho and see if the studies done thus far have followed a similar timeline. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 01:44, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, how long does treatment take? Does this usually require weeks or months of frequent trips to the doctor? I can imagine that being a barrier to treatment in the rural areas where the risk of transmission is highest.
- Also a great question that I will try to find the answer to. I don't remember that being explicitly stated in any of my sources but I'll take another look. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 01:44, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:05, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Suggest scaling up the life cycle diagram; throughout, scaling should be done with |upright= rather than fixed pixel size

You have several sources in the article indicated as being in the public domain, but then you have images from those same sources tagged as being Creative Commons licensed. Which of those is correct?

How are you ordering the Sources section?

The Causes and Mechanism sections seem to overlap. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:06, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the scale on all of the images using the upright instead and upscaled that one a bit. I mixed up copyright terms but have changed that now. They are now appropriately tagged. I ordered the sources section based on when the sources are used and then all the image sources at the end as I added those last. The causes and mechanisms do overlap a bit. I based the sections off of the WP:MEDMOS but if you think those sections would be better combined let me know. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 02:33, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D

I was invited to comment on this PR on my talk page, as a volunteer FAC mentor. With the very large proviso that this isn't a topic I know anything at all about, I'd like to offer the following comments:

Overall, the article is in very good shape and covers the topic in a comprehensive but not too detailed way. It would benefit from some polishing to reach FA status though.
As a general comment, the article's wording is generally a bit too technical for a general audience (as a single, indicative example, I don't know what "the most common cause of intracranial hypertension in neurocysticercosis is hydrocephalus" means). I'd suggest reviewing the text with an eye to using simpler terminology and explaining concepts more - remember that Wikipedia's most important use is generally as an introduction to topics for a general but interested readership.
The sentence starting with 'Neurocysticercosis manifests' is rather over-complex, and should be split into two sentences
"The first recorded cases of neurocysticercosis were likely in 1558" - the article later notes though that the disease appears to have been circulating in ancient Egypt and Rome.
"is endemic in developing countries, such as Latin America, China, Nepal, Africa, India, and Southeast Asia" - these are regions, not countries, and the regions include many countries that are not "developing" - e.g. much of modern Southeast Asia is at middle income status and countries like Chile and Singapore are classified as being at high levels of development.
The "Causes" section implies that people who consume Taenia solium are certain to have tapeworms develop. Is this the case?
The Diagnosis section states that the disease is " often hard to access in areas with fewer resources" - do sources allow this statement to be extended to note that this is often the case in the developing economies that are most affected by it? (or are there good ways to diagnose the disease using low tech/cost ways in these countries?)
Could the redlink to Eradicable disease point to Eradication of infectious diseases, or are we best off with the redlink as is? (I'm surprised that we don't have an article on Eradicable diseases given the concept seems a bit different, and is very important)
For disposal of waste, waste disposal/Waste management seems the appropriate link. You might want to create a redirect.
"Urbanization and development cause these factors to go away" - I think that the wording here could be tweaked to be a bit more formal
The treatment section notes that this is a fairly complex disease to treat, with the response needing to be tailored to the individual's symptoms and circumstances and often requiring a relatively complex response. While it's not stated, I imagine that this is difficult/impossible in many developing economies and remote areas.
"Over half of those with calcified parenchymal neurocysticercosis have relapses in seizures and need antiseizure medications long-term." - needs a reference
Are the increase in cases in wealthy countries noted in the 'Epidemiology' section due to local infections or people contracting the disease elsewhere and then travelling to these countries? The later is implied, but is a bit unclear.
The map of Indonesia here is a bit odd given that the article says the disease isn't common in Muslim countries. Why is Indonesia being highlighted given it's mainly a Muslim nation?
There's a see also link to Neglected tropical diseases, but this diseases' status as such isn't discussed in the body of the article. This would be a good topic to cover if it is a neglected tropical disease (in general, if you need a see also in articles that are being developed for FA status it's probably a topic that should be covered in the article). Nick-D (talk) 10:13, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]