User talk:Axl/archive 16

Reference Errors on 4 March

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:53, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Thanks for your literature survey, but can you move it to the section Talk:Tetrahydrocannabinol/Archives/2020#Myocardial_infarction to separate it from the discussions of Marinol that appear to sidetrack things? Second Quantization (talk) 15:09, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The section Talk:Tetrahydrocannabinol/Archives/2020#Marinol.2C_Cannabis.2C_and_Mortality is not specific to Marinol. Moreover, the sources that I listed include both myocardial infarction and stroke. Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:32, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lead anesthesia

I've overhauled the lead. If you have a minute I could use a second set of eyes to read through it. Thx. Ian Furst (talk) 19:13, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I shall take a look. I shall leave comments on the talk page. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:48, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Meditation and hypertension

Hi Axl. Thanks for your attention to detail in your edit to the sentence on alternative approaches to lowering blood pressure in the Hypertension article. That sentence now reads: "Different programs aimed to reduce psychological stress such a biofeedback, relaxation or transcendental meditation may be reasonable add-ons to other treatment to reduce hypertension." It cites Brook 2013. I see where Brook says biofeedback and Transcendental Meditation may be considered to lower blood pressure, but I don't see that it says the same for relaxation. What do you think? Should that be removed? Thanks. TimidGuy (talk) 11:17, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have access to the full paper. I assume that you are right that Brook does not recommend consideration of relaxation. I could not find other suitable sources that explicitly recommend relaxation. Therefore I agree that relaxation should be deleted from the sentence. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:16, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Axl. Note that the AHA has made the full text available online for free, both as web page and pdf.[1] Once you confirm, would you be willing to make the edit? (In the past I was banned for two months for challenging the accuracy of Doc James's representation of sources, so I'm reluctant to do so.) TimidGuy (talk) 10:49, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the link. I shall read the paper and post on the article's talk page. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks much, Axl, for fixing that. And edits you made to the subsequent sentence fixed a couple misrepresentations that I noted. I guess the only question I have now is whether Brook 2013 supports the sentence that says research on transcendental meditation and biofeedback is generally low. TimidGuy (talk) 15:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding transcendental meditation, Brook states "As a result of the paucity of data, we are unable to recommend a specific method of practice when TM is used for the treatment of high BP." For biofeedback: "a paucity of data precludes making recommendations for implementing a specific methodology to treat high BP in clinical practice."
I have deleted two of the older references. I have changed "quality" to "quantity". Is this reasonable? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:10, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Axl. I think that would be accurate if we specified that the quantity of data is in the context of recommending a particular method of practice. It's not, as I understand, a statement about the quantity of data related to effectiveness. (In a subsequent exchange in the journal, it was clarified that there's only one method of practicing TM.) TimidGuy (talk) 10:39, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you could suggest the exact text to state? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:03, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brook does say this toward the end: "There are several shortcomings in our present knowledge of the merits of alternative BP-lowering modalities. These include a paucity of well-designed, high-quality cardiovascular outcome trials in appropriate populations with hypertension with adequate control intervention groups for a number of nonpharmacological interventions." As I understand it, this means that even though the research suggests a reduction in blood pressure, there aren't enough studies showing whether this translates to a reduction in heart attacks, stroke, mortality rate, etc. For example, there's only one such study for TM. So your sentence could be adjusted slightly: "However, of the techniques with supportive evidence, there is a paucity of research on whether the modest reduction in blood pressure results in a reduction in cardiovascular disease." TimidGuy (talk) 10:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How about this: "However, of the techniques with supportive evidence, there is limited information on whether the modest reduction in blood pressure results in prevention of cardiovascular disease." Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:52, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect. Thanks, Axl. TimidGuy (talk) 10:01, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I have changed the text in the article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:09, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation join the new Physiology Wikiproject!

Physiology gives us an understanding of how and why things in the field of medicine happen. Together, let us jumpstart the project and get it going. Our energy is all it needs.

Based on the long felt gap for categorization and improvization of WP:MED articles relating to the field of physiology, the new WikiProject Physiology has been created. WikiProject Physiology is still in its infancy and needs your help. On behalf of a group of editors striving to improve the quality of physiology articles here on Wikipedia, I would like to invite you to come on board and participate in the betterment of physiology related articles. Help us to jumpstart this WikiProject.

  • Feel free to leave us a message at any time on the WikiProkect Physiology talk page. If you are interested in joining the project yourself, there is a participant list where you can sign up. Please leave a message on the talk page if you have any problems, suggestions, would like review of an article, need suggestions for articles to edit, or would like some collaboration when editing!
  • You can tag the talk pages of relevant articles with {{WikiProject Physiology|class=|importance=}} with your assessment of the article class and importance alongwith. Please note that WP:Physiology, WP:Physio, WP:Phy can be used interchangeably.
  • You will make a big difference to the quality of information by adding reliable sources. Sourcing physiology articles is essential and makes a big difference to the quality of articles. And, while you're at it, why not use a book to source information, which can source multiple articles at once!
  • We try and use a standard way of arranging the content in each article. That layout is here. These headings let us have a standard way of presenting the information in anatomical articles, indicate what information may have been forgotten, and save angst when trying to decide how to organise an article. That said, this might not suit every article. If in doubt, be bold!
  • Why not try and strive to create a good article! Physiology related articles are often small in scope, have available sources, and only a limited amount of research available that is readily presentable!
  • Your contributions to the WikiProject page, related categories and templates is also welcome.
  • To invite other editors to this WikiProject, copy and past this template (with the signature):
  • To welcome editors of physiology articles, copy and past this template (with the signature):
  • You can feel free to contact us on the WikiProkect Physiology talk page if you have any problems, or wish to join us. You can also put your suggestions there and discuss the scope of participation.

Hoping for your cooperation! DiptanshuTalk 13:38, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Axl. You have new messages at This lousy T-shirt's talk page.
Message added 18:13, 6 May 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

—This lousy T-shirt— (talk) 18:13, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for the barnstar. And I feel very satisfied that the article was able to make you interested in watching the film. Please do so, and then the article itself may become even more meaningful for you :)--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:24, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

YYYY-MM-DD dates

Hi Axl. The script I used previously on our FAs just recently added a YYYY-MM-DD date conversion option. Do you remember which of our FAs were using that convention as a standard? I figure it'd be best if I went through and updated the date format in those articles to reestablish YMD as a (consistent) standard now that I have the capacity to do so. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 21:34, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Seppi333. I don't remember exactly which articles were involved, but I do know that "Lung cancer" was one of them. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:53, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like the script's conversion option to YMD is nonfunctional at the moment. If that's the only article, then I'll probably go through and manually change them all back to the YMD format some time over the next week or two. Shouldn't take me too long to do it. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 01:03, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that it's important. I'm sure that you have more productive things to do with your time. Axl ¤ [Talk] 01:06, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Pulse (WP:MED newsletter) June 2014

The first edition of The Pulse has been released. The Pulse will be a regular newsletter documenting the goings-on at WPMED, including ongoing collaborations, discussions, articles, and each edition will have a special focus. That newsletter is here.

The newsletter has been sent to the talk pages of WP:MED members bearing the {{User WPMed}} template. To opt-out, please leave a message here or simply remove your name from the mailing list. Because this is the first issue, we are still finding out feet. Things like the layout and content may change in subsequent editions. Please let us know what you think, and if you have any ideas for the future, by leaving a message here.

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:23, 5 June 2014 (UTC) on behalf of WikiProject Medicine.[reply]

Dota 2 FAC

Thank you for your feedback- I can tell that you are meticulous and smart, which is exactly what I need for bringing this article to Featured Article status. Now, I did acknowledge most of what you recommended, but I did not a couple questions you could probably elaborate upon. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 21:39, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, about the page you brought up, I found it before, but I hesitated to add it because I wasn't sure if it was a reliable source and because the requirements are unsubstantiated. However, if you so desire, I could include it. Should I? DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 18:37, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have commented on the FAC page. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:39, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have addressed most of your concerns, but I'll need a bit of time to decide on how to approach the ones that I haven't rectified, because they're more complicated. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 20:13, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:55, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I'll keep the formatting in mind. Not a problem! DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 18:09, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have addressed all your remaining concerns on the FAC nomination page, though some of my replies merely constitute my conclusions about issues. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 23:56, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Error classification?

Hi Axl. A curiosity: You say it was the compiling researcher who classified the "discordances" as errors. Do you find that implied somewhere in the paper? My understanding has been that the "discordances" were merely interpreted (in the Discussion) as likely errors. Best wishes, 86.181.64.67 (talk) 10:21, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that is indeed what I mean. The researcher who drew up the conclusion decided that these "discordances" were likely errors in Wikipedia. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:24, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks Axl, that was my understanding too. Just checking I hadn't missed something (there wasn't any formal classification of errors). 86.181.64.67 (talk) 10:27, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BMJ offering 25 free accounts to Wikipedia medical editors

Neat news: BMJ is offering 25 free, full-access accounts to their prestigious medical journal through The Wikipedia Library and Wiki Project Med Foundation (like we did with Cochrane). Please sign up this week: Wikipedia:BMJ --Cheers, Ocaasi via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Axl. You have new messages at Timtrent's talk page.
Message added 10:30, 12 June 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Fiddle Faddle 10:30, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Axl. You have new messages at 5 albert square's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Accidental edit

Whoops, I accidentally pressed the wrong button somehow when I had my fingers on the mousepad and keys, and I accidentally reverted one of your edits on the Cervix page. I changed it back immediately. Sorry about that. Snowman (talk) 09:40, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you for letting me know. :-) Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:05, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know

have a stub for Libby Weaver? I suggested a merge, meant to do that much earlier. Dougweller (talk) 18:24, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Barnstar

Oh, thank you so much! Yes, I have been discouraged as of late, in between failing relationships and skin cancer, I just have trouble keeping patient when such good FAC work is derailed by the complacency of lazy editors who just say, "Yeah, I agree with the guy above". I really appreciate the effort you put into the FAC, as well as the other meticulous editors. I was honestly expecting better results at the end, before Jimmy gave his $0.02. I honestly really liked Jimmy's approach, even if it was harsh as the fires of hell, as I believe it will ensure it's ready for the next attempt. Once again, thank you for everything, Axl. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 08:09, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Andrevan@ 22:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Medical Translation Newsletter


Wikiproject Medicine; Translation Taskforce

Medical Translation Newsletter
Issue 1, June/July 2014
by CFCF, Doc James

sign up for monthly delivery


This is the first of a series of newsletters for Wikiproject Medicine's Translation Task Force. Our goal is to make all the medical knowledge on Wikipedia available to the world, in the language of your choice.

note: you will not receive future editions of this newsletter unless you *sign up*; you received this version because you identify as a member of WikiProject Medicine

Spotlight - Simplified article translation

Wikiproject Medicine started translating simplified articles in February 2014. We now have 45 simplified articles ready for translation, of which the first on African trypanosomiasis or sleeping sickness has been translated into 46 out of ~100 languages. This list does not include the 33 additional articles that are available in both full and simple versions.

Our goal is to eventually translate 1,000 simplified articles. This includes:

We are looking for subject area leads to both create articles and recruit further editors. We need people with basic medical knowledge who are willing to help out. This includes to write, translate and especially integrate medical articles.

What's happening?

IEG grant
CFCF - "IEG beneficiary" and editor of this newsletter.

I've (CFCF) taken on the role of community organizer for this project, and will be working with this until December. The goals and timeline can be found here, and are focused on getting the project on a firm footing and to enable me to work near full-time over the summer, and part-time during the rest of the year. This means I will be available for questions and ideas, and you can best reach me by mail or on my talk page.

Wikimania 2014

For those going to London in a month's time (or those already nearby) there will be at least one event for all medical editors, on Thursday August 7th. See the event page, which also summarizes medicine-related presentations in the main conference. Please pass the word on to your local medical editors.

Integration progress

There has previously been some resistance against translation into certain languages with strong Wikipedia presence, such as Dutch, Polish, and Swedish.
What was found is that thre is hardly any negative opinion about the the project itself; and any such critique has focused on the ways that articles have being integrated. For an article to be usefully translated into a target-Wiki it needs to be properly Wiki-linked, carry proper citations and use the formatting of the chosen target language as well as being properly proof-read. Certain large Wikis such as the Polish and Dutch Wikis have strong traditions of medical content, with their own editorial system, own templates and different ideas about what constitutes a good medical article. For example, there are not MEDRS (Polish,German,Romanian,Persian) guidelines present on other Wikis, and some Wikis have a stronger background of country-specific content.

  • Swedish
    Translation into Swedish has been difficult in part because of the amount of free, high quality sources out there already: patient info, for professionals. The same can be said for English, but has really given us all the more reason to try and create an unbiased and free encyclopedia of medical content. We want Wikipedia to act as an alternative to commercial sources, and preferably a really good one at that.
    Through extensive collaborative work and by respecting links and Sweden specific content the last unintegrated Swedish translation went live in May.
  • Dutch
    Dutch translation carries with it special difficulties, in part due to the premises in which the Dutch Wikipedia is built upon. There is great respect for what previous editors have created, and deleting or replacing old content can be frowned upon. In spite of this there are success stories: Anafylaxie.
  • Polish
    Translation and integration into Polish also comes with its own unique set of challenges. The Polish Wikipedia has long been independent and works very hard to create high quality contentfor Polish audience. Previous translation trouble has lead to use of unique templates with unique formatting, not least among citations. Add to this that the Polish Wikipedia does not allow template redirects and a large body of work is required for each article.
    (This is somewhat alleviated by a commissioned Template bot - to be released). - List of articles for integration
  • Arabic
    The Arabic Wikipedia community has been informed of the efforts to integrate content through both the general talk-page as well as through one of the major Arabic Wikipedia facebook-groups: مجتمع ويكيبيديا العربي, something that has been heralded with great enthusiasm.
Integration guides

Integration is the next step after any translation. Despite this it is by no means trivial, and it comes with its own hardships and challenges. Previously each new integrator has needed to dive into the fray with little help from previous integrations. Therefore we are creating guides for specific Wikis that make integration simple and straightforward, with guides for specific languages, and for integrating on small Wikis.

Instructions on how to integrate an article may be found here [4]

News in short

To come
  • Medical editor census - Medical editors on different Wikis have been without proper means of communication. A preliminary list of projects is available here.
  • Proofreading drives

Further reading



Thanks for reading! To receive a monthly talk page update about new issues of the Medical Translation Newsletter, please add your name to the subscriber's list. To suggest items for the next issue, please contact the editor, CFCF (talk · contribs) at Wikipedia:Wikiproject Medicine/Translation Taskforce/Newsletter/Suggestions.
Want to help out manage the newsletter? Get in touch with me CFCF (talk · contribs)
For the newsletter from Wikiproject Medicine, see The Pulse
If you are receiving this newsletter without having signed up, it is because you have signed up as a member of the Translation Taskforce, or Wiki Project Med on meta. 22:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your input on Ketamine

Thanks for your contributions. I appreciate your input on the talk page. If you get a chance I'd appreciate a look at the other subjects I have brought up. I do a lot of reference and verification work but not so much content writing. The article is in need of some attention. Any help would be appreciated. I was going to finish going through the existing references before posting to Project Medicine. If you think I should post something there now let me know. Best. - - MrBill3 (talk) 10:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Barnstar

Many thanks for the barnstar. Really appreciate it. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 18:40, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heroin

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to respond; I have done so. GreenReaper (talk) 12:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alerts

Your name has been used to quote some of your thought on the Vagina talk page today. I usually link user's names whenever I write about another user. Do you prefer to be alerted every time or do you think that this is unnecessary on this talk page, because are you watching the discussion there. Snowman (talk) 13:28, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am following the discussion there already. But thanks for letting me know anyway. :-) Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:01, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly request

Hello there! I've been working on a project to bring as much of Wikipedia's code up to HTML5 standards as I can, and I've noticed that your signature is using some code that could be updated! If you're interested in and willing to get rid of the deprecated and obsolete tags in your signature, I suggest replacing: 

[[User:Axl|<span style="color:#808000;">'''Axl'''</span>]] <span style="color:#3CB371;">¤</span> [[User talk:Axl|<span style="color:#808000; font-size:smaller;">[Talk]</span>]]
with:
[[User:Axl|<b style="color:#808000">Axl</b>]] <span style="color:#3CB371">¤</span> [[User talk:Axl|<small style="color:#808000">[Talk]</small>]]
which will result in a 144 character long signature (7 characters shorter) with an appearance of: Axl ¤ [Talk]
compared to your existing 151 character long signature of: Axl ¤ [Talk]
— Either way. Happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 17:46, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for letting me know. I have changed my signature's code as you recommend. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:39, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Precious again

medicine
Thank you for quality articles in Pulmonology and Pharmacology, your care for spelling, and for being good medicine for fellow editors in peer review and support, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:25, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two years ago, you were the 307th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:00, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:59, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Today Amphibian, precious again, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:08, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you again! Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:17, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
As far as I know, we have never interacted before now, but owing to Gerda's precious award, I have had cause to look up your work. The articles you so diligently work on, are important reading for so many people, and I would like to say on behalf of everyone, thank you. Cassiantotalk 13:01, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I appreciate it. :-) Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:41, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia study- Thank you

Hello Axl, I hope you remember speaking to me in the summer of 2012 about your motivations for contributing to the health-related pages on Wikipedia. The great news is that the study got published this Wednesday in JMIR (Journal of Medical Internet Research). You can read it here: http://www.jmir.org/2014/12/e260 This would not have been possible without your contributions so once again, I would like to thank you for taking the time and sharing your experiences with me. I also wrote an entry about my own experience with the study, about additional observations and how I plan to further extend my research - published in the WMF blog today: https://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/2014/12/who-writes-wikipedias-health-and-medical-pages-and-why/If you have any comments or questions please get in touch.Perhaps see you at the next Wikimania conference in Mexico! Best Wishes Hydra Rain (talk) 21:16, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Bondegezou pointed it out at WikiProject Medicine's talk page and I have read the paper. There are some interesting findings. Congratulations on the publication. :-) Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:15, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Research newsletter review

Hi Axl,

I understand from James that you are interested in reviewing this paper for the Signpost's Recent research section (which doubles as the Wikimedia Research Newsletter; now in its fifth volume). Could you do a write-up for this month's issue, which is scheduled to come out with the next Signpost? (Nominal publication date is already Wednesday the 25th, although the actual publication usually occurs one or several days later. More details on how to contribute - including a list of other papers we plan to cover, with several others about Wikipedia's health content - can be found here. If this week is too soon, we could also postpone it to the April issue, but we would need a confirmation now who is going to cover it.)

Thanks! Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 01:04, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tbayer. I shall try to complete my review during the next couple of days. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:13, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great, thanks! It is now on the draft page (currently publication is planned for Thursday UTC). Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 15:33, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Review draft

A paper in Advances in Physiology Education claims to assess the suitability of Wikipedia's respiratory articles for medical student learning. Forty Wikipedia articles on respiratory topics were sampled on 27 April 2014. These articles were assessed by three researchers with a modified version of the DISCERN tool. Article references were checked for accuracy and typography. Readability was assessed with the Flesch–Kincaid and Coleman–Liau tools.

The paper found a wide range of accuracy scores using the modified DISCERN tool, from 14.67 for "[Nail] clubbing" to 38.33 for "Tuberculosis". Incorrect, incomplete or inconsistent formatting of references were commonly found, although these were not quantified in the paper. Readability of the articles was typically at a college level. On the basis of these findings, the paper declares Wikipedia's respiratory articles as unsuitable for medical students.

The paper's author apparently uses an arbitrary unvalidated modification of the DISCERN tool to assess the accuracy of articles. The nature of this modification is not specified, nor is it available at the journal's website as claimed by the paper.

The DISCERN tool does not assess accuracy. Rather, it is designed to assess "information about treatment choices specifically for health consumers". As such, the use of this tool is inappropriate to assess suitability for medical students.

The paper's author fails to acknowledge that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Several of the DISCERN tool's questions are unsuitable for an encyclopedia. DISCERN questions such as "Does it describe how each treatment works?" and "Does it describe the risks of each treatment?" would be answered on other Wikipedia pages, not on the disease article's page. The paper's author makes an a priori assumption that the medical textbooks used for comparison are perfect sources. The author does not assess those textbooks with the DISCERN tool.

The paper states "[t]he number of citations from peer-reviewed journals published in the last 5 yr was only 312 (19%)." However this is far superior to the number of citations in the textbooks listed. The chapter on "Neoplasms of the lung" in Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine (18th edition) contains no citations at all. Seven sources are listed in its "Further readings" section, of which only one is from the last five years.

The paper states that the article on "clubbing... had no references or external links." This is incorrect. On 27 April 2014, Wikipedia's article on "Nail clubbing" had ten references.

Several of the articles are at a rudimentary stage, containing limited information and lacking appropriate references. However two articles, "Lung cancer" and "Diffuse panbronchiolitis", were assessed by Wikipedia's editors at the highest standard and awarded "Featured article" status. Five more articles, "Asthma", "Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease", "Pneumonia", "Pneumothorax" and "Tuberculosis", reached "Good article" standard. These articles are exceptionally detailed, accurate, and well-referenced. Azer's paper makes no mention of the high quality of these articles.

The paper uses an unvalidated tool for an inappropriate purpose without applying a suitable comparator, and inevitably draws incorrect conclusions.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not a medical textbook, nor is it intended to replace medical textbooks. Rather, it should be used as a starting point by medical students. The quality of an individual article should be quickly assessed by the reader, and information can be confirmed in the references provided. Missing information should be sought from other sources such as textbooks. Students should be encouraged to use Wikipedia alongside medical textbooks to assist their learning.

Disclosure: I (Axl) am a Wikipedia editor, a pulmonologist, the main author of Wikipedia's "Lung cancer" article, and a major contributor to other respiratory articles.

Thank you for the copy-editing. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interstitial lung disease

Hi Axl! As you're Wikipedia's resident pulmonologist, I thought I'd come pick your brain about an issue I'm having, if that's okay. I've been working on occupational lung disease and since a lot of the diseases caused by occupational exposure are interstitial lung diseases, I was wondering if we should have a separate article for fibrosing vs non-fibrosing interstitial lung diseases. Harrison's says "One useful approach to classification is to separate the ILDs into two groups based on the major underlying histopathology: (1) those associated with predominant inflammation and fibrosis and (2) those with a predominantly granulomatous reaction in interstitial or vascular areas", which makes me think this could be a useful pair of articles to make since the etiology and histopathology are so distinct, though there's a common set of symptoms. I'd love to hear your thoughts on this! Best, Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) (talk) 20:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The chapter on "Occupational and environmental lung disease" in Harrison's Principles categorizes the diseases according to inorganic or organic cause. Infectious diseases such as anthrax and influenza are not included. Given that the NIOSH page includes these diseases, I think that it is reasonable to add them too. (Ebola is conspicuously absent, although the page was written in December 2012.)
Harrison's Principles has a separate chapter on "Interstitial lung diseases". I think that the categorization of the two sets of diseases should remain different.
Our "Occupational lung disease" and "Interstitial lung disease" articles should be mainly lists of the diseases, with links to the diseases' main articles. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:54, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for replying! :) I'm not sure that only a list is the most helpful thing, instead a quick summary of each disease or agent with a link to the main article is useful for someone who wants just a bare-bones overview of each disease without having to click through to all of them. Is that reasonable/is that what you meant? Thanks much, Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) (talk) 01:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC) (P.S. - just read your response to that paper and it was fantastic!) 01:47, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a brief summary of each disease is certainly a reasonable approach. (Thank you for reading my response to the paper, and for your agreement.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks much for your input and for all of your awesome pulmonology writing! :) Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) (talk) 17:06, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome! If you would like me to edit or review either of those articles, please let me know. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I'll totally take you up on that. :) If you have a sec, I would really appreciate it if you could have a look at flock worker's lung. My main issue has been finding sources that meet MEDRS since there aren't really any specific reviews that I can find so I've been leaning on UpToDate, NIOSH summaries, and reviews of literature as part of non-review articles. But since I'm definitely not a pulmonologist, a pair of expert eyes would be very helpful! Thanks, Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) (talk) 17:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Like you, I am struggling to find suitable sources for this relatively recently recognized disease. Here is a source that may be useful. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:11, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh, I hadn't found that one yet! Thank you! :) Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) (talk) 21:28, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Critique

Great critique. I have added it here to pubmed https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25727464 Hope you do not mind. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, thanks. (I wonder if my real name should be added? No big deal either way.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually we normally use real names for the bylines in the research newsletter (e.g. in this issue: [[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny]]), so I would be happy to add yours too. (I didn't see it mentioned on your user page, so I thought you might be one of the many users who prefer to withhold it in public.) Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 00:11, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Prince of Ayodhya.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Prince of Ayodhya.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:29, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]