Fiona Godlee, editor-in-chief, and Peter Ashman, Publishing Director of BMJ (the company owned by the British Medical Association that publishes a suite of first-tier journals including The BMJ) have offered to put their best reviewers on the job if we would like them to check our medical articles for accuracy, up-to-dateness, completeness and neutrality (due weight). There's no rush. (I've told them I think we'd be lucky to submit ten articles in the first year.) So, if you've got an article that has recently passed the Featured Article or Featured Article Review process, and you'd like it rigorously peer-reviewed, let me know. (Peter mentioned their list of reviewers is particularly strong in the fields of rheumatic diseases, gastroenterology and sports medicine but any medical topic should be fine.)

Assuming we can get it past the community, there will be a badge at the top of the current version of any reviewed article, pointing the reader to the version that passed peer-review, and that reviewed version will have a doi and will be a WP:RS (and may well be PubMed indexed - though discussions on that haven't yet begun). --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:56, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Anthony, this is a great offer, which I know you've put a lot of work into over a long period! Well done, and thanks to the BMJ too. Johnbod (talk) 03:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, great, Anthony! I am exploring the possibility of using Hypothes.is as a way to provide feedback (example), which a group of climate change experts has recently applied to news articles in their field. I spoke with them, and they are willing to give Wikipedia articles a try, so I have notified WP:ENV of that. Hypothesis said they would be interested in helping with similar review efforts in other fields, including medicine, so perhaps we can combine or complement this with the BMJ initiative. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 23:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

both (BMI and h.) ideas seem good(however more opinions should be sought)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:42, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I like the annotation idea (e.g. using hypothes.is; reminds me of the defunct Third Voice that I thought was cool at the time) and I just created an account there, and the overlay on WP is nice, but I don't see a way out-of-the-box to make those profiles authoritative or the annotations sufficiently visible to be compelling as peer review. As is, it doesn't seem like a big leap from the Talk page. -- soupvector (talk) 00:15, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Hypothesis is integrating annotations with ORCIDs, which will be one way of assessing authority. The current plug in requires activation, but if it is embedded in the Wiki, then that won't be necessary. I think the larger question is how can annotations be used to improve the quality of Wikipedia articles. In my view, annotation is an immediate and quick way for individuals to add knowledge to a page. It takes me a few seconds to note a typo, for example; a little longer to add a reference. These same individuals, in my domain biomedical researchers, may not be willing to go in and actively edit an article, which requires a steeper learning curve but might be willing to give feedback by Hypothesis. In-line annotation is incredibly useful as you can target the specific phrase or sentence that needs attention. A talk page is removed from the article and requires more effort to add information; annotation involves highlighting and adding short bits of text. Those used to working with Wikis can often forget that the majority of researchers don't do this regularly and there is a definite activation barrier). Editors would then have the option of incorporating the feedback or not. So my experience as a researcher (who, in full disclosure,now works for Hypothesis) is that it is a lighter weight, more efficient means to solicit feedback from experts. I think it is definitely worth testing as at least in my domain (neuroscience), it has been difficult to get experts to go in and edit Wiki pages. Memartone (talk) 17:11, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this is off-topic here (say so and I'll go away) but for a physician-scientist like me, hypothes.is may be a non-starter - the browser extension requires access to all sites I visit, which would be disallowed in my clinical environment. Theoretically this could be something that gets relegated to computers or browsers from which I would never look at clinical content in a browser, but practically this isn't something I'll sign up to track. Not sure how to crack that nut - maybe non-physician experts will agree to those terms (but I'm not sure they should). soupvector (talk) 20:53, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The browser extension isn't required. There is a proxy service which will inject the annotation layer on to any open page. For instance, this one: [1]. The proxy is available via the Hypothes.is home page, or you can just edit the URL by hand. Also, we have a bookmarklet available there which does not have access to all your browsing. For the record, with the extension, we do not record, save or track that data even though we have access to it. (Full disclosure, I work at Hypothes.is) dano5050 (talk) 17:27, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a really interesting idea; assigning DOIs to specific revisions (by crossref?) would be a big step forward in integrating Wikipedia into the academic literature. I don't have much investment in the types of articles BMJ would review, but I like the idea of working in this direction - pointing the citation to Wikipedia - as an alternative PLoS approach of hosting static copies on their own site as citable "topic pages". How is this going to work - will the text of the reviews be publicly available, or the changes made in response to the reviews annotated somehow? Will the reviewers' identities be known? Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:14, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Opabinia regalis, the review will happen on the article's talk page as a conversation between the reviewers and the authors. The reviewers will use their own names and will have affiliations and potential COIs listed on their user page. I'm hoping we'll have a lead reviewer who is a scholar in the E.M. Forster sense, who "masters all [of the subject's] facts and the leading facts of the subjects neighbouring", to assess the article's neutrality and comprehensiveness, and enough specialists in the sub-topics to be reasonably confident about its accuracy and up-to-datenes. We'll somehow highlight who is endorsing which sections. And yes, Geoffrey Bilder from CrossRef said he'd help us with the DOI when we're ready.

Daniel, I'll look more carefully at the Hypothesis.is proposal later tonight. I confess I was so jet-lagged during the recent Wikipedia Science Conference that I was struggling to take in all the new ideas coming at me. The annotation idea is hot, though, and I'd like to see that or something like it built into Wikipedia for all "post-publication review".

I can envision lots of off-wiki entities wanting to review our stuff in all sorts of knowledge domains. We'll need to evolve a set of policies on whose endorsed versions we point our readers to. But there is plenty of time for that discussion and, for now, I'd prefer that we let a thousand flowers bloom and see how they develop. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:55, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I like the idea of preserving the review as a dialogue - the current open-review efforts in journals still seem a little stilted to me. (See e.g. the F1000 Research model.) I've always been very resistant to the idea of importing "authoritativeness" onto Wikipedia by soliciting endorsements from specific identified academics; I think academic publishing is already too reliant on trading on individual people's reputations - a feature that brings with it all kinds of systemic-bias problems. But my opinions on the matter mostly derive from basic science, not anything anywhere in throwing distance of the clinic, and from being involved in various aspects of the open-access debate. I'm really interested to see how this goes. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:56, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• How about if as a first step we try Parkinson's disease? The editor who did the main work in bringing it to FA status, Garrondo (talk · contribs), has not been around for quite a while, but I have been involved with the article the whole time and would be happy to interact with a reviewer as needed. One thing I would like to see is whether their reviewers are able to work according to Wikipedia's criteria rather than the usual criteria for a journal article, and this seems like a good test case for finding out. Looie496 (talk) 12:33, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looie496, absolutely. Any article that has recently passed the Featured Article or Featured Article Review process and is about diseases or treatments will be fine, I think. Somebody at the conference last week (I'm sorry I can't remember who) asked if we'd please consider Malaria, so if anyone's interested in that, please work on it.

I and BMJ will be giving them clear, concise guidelines, but I gather peer-reviewers "never" read the guidelines, so yes, it'll be interesting to see how those discussions go. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:52, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Parkinson's article passed in 2011. I don't know if that counts as recent, but it has been pretty rigorously maintained, and has the advantage that it is ready to go right now. Looie496 (talk) 13:05, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, if you're confident about its up-to-dateness. I'll give it a bit of a scan over the next couple of days and get back to you here. I've had an email from an editor proposing an article that passed FA fairly recently, which I'm looking at just now. So this is all happening much quicker than I expected. Thank you both. I'm much relieved. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:20, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just reached out to a group of malaria experts to see whether they would be willing to make suggestions or contribute to the Malaria article - will circle back when I have responses (and I'll try to ensure that this doesn't become a mess of newbie changes to an already-good article, but rather a clearly-communicated endeavor compliant with WP guidance). This should not interfere but rather enhance any effort to have BMJ help review downstream. -- soupvector (talk) 13:48, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly what we're hoping to engender here: topic experts working up articles in their field and Wikipedia experts guiding them through our MOS and policy maze, ending in a review by highly-regarded colleagues, and a doi. Thank you, soupvector. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:17, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was me who had suggested Malaria, for various reasons. Glad to see things moving forward so quickly, soupvector! -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 20:30, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 :o) That's the jet-lag. Sorry Daniel. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:04, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looie496, I'm happy to submit Parkinson's disease and have pointed Peter to it. We have a few things to make up yet, but will keep you informed. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:52, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Looie496 (talk) 18:25, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent initiative. PD should probably be updated before we submit it though if it passed on 2011.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:20, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of criticism and improvement (if warranted) of Parkinson's disease before the review begins would be very much appreciated. (Welcome back, James.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:37, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looie, today I had a meeting with Peter Ashman and Josie Breen - we're still talking about the reviewer guidelines and the process. Regarding the latter, it looks like being a fairly unstructured conversation on the talk page. Before that conversation begins, I'll give the reviewers an introduction to policy and wiki markup and create a user page for them listing their relevant affiliations and possible conflicts of interest.

Peter and Josie are approaching the editor-in-chief of the relavent journal in their suite for advice but they will choose the reviewers..

They'd like to do one article at a time and will start with Parkinson's disease. I'll keep you informed. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:07, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I'll make a detailed pass through the article in the near future to make sure everything is review-ready -- of course others are also encouraged to go over it. Looie496 (talk) 12:14, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

will look as well--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update 10 October

Peter and Josie's first choice for reviewer has agreed to take it on. They're now pursuing others. Once they're all in place, we'll get the reviewers' feedback regarding our reviewer guidelines - to make sure they've read them, clear up any queries, and modify the guidelines in light of their feedback, where appropriate. Then we'll have a group teleconference, Skype chat or Google Hangout or whatever, where I'll walk them through creating an account, starting a user page, and conversing on a talk page. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 00:56, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello medical experts! This draft about a doctor has claims to notability, but I am having trouble confirming them. Is this a notable subject, or should it be deleted as a stale draft?—Anne Delong (talk) 14:27, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• H-index of 33 on Google Scholar, the NY Daily News source looks reliable (although none of the other ones in the draft do), and given coverage in other reliable sources, [2] [3] I think he's probably notable. Everymorning (talk) 14:33, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

notable per Wikipedia:Notability--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:15, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The draft reads too much like a CV, and the user who created it Claireawheeler has a grand total of 10 edits, of which all are on the draft. CFCF 💌 📧 13:10, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Ozzie10aaaa and CFCF, I have postponed its deletion, and started moving it away from its resumé-like style. My descriptions are likely too simplistic, though; someone may want to reword. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:49, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Everymorning, can you please link to the Google Scholar report? I am having trouble finding it.—Anne Delong (talk) 03:57, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here. You'll have to figure out his h-index by counting unless, as I do, you have this tool installed on your browser. Everymorning (talk) 15:43, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

very useful tool for any article[4]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:28, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stroke recovery is a bit of a mess (IMO). Is it still B-class? (last assessed in 2008 by @WhatamIdoing:) Would copyeditting be enough or does it need expert input? Little pob (talk) 13:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the placement of the references is unusualHelp:Referencing_for_beginners--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:40, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like someone merged together a bunch of small pieces. User:Little pob, copyediting (including wholesale restructuring) would be an important improvement, and it would probably make it easier to get expert input. The assessment level is not entirely wrong, but I would probably rate it as C-class (which didn't exist back then) on the grounds that the ==Lateral medullary syndrome== section has no inline citations (only WP:General references). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:49, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

agree--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep an eye on Dua's layer: [5] - üser:Altenmann >t 18:00, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ping Altenmann, moved from WT:MEDRSCFCF 💌 📧 16:22, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

watching--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:56, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The FODMAP diet is receiving media attention, but the article itself is chock full of lousy primary sources claiming the diet works for irritable bowel syndrome sufferers. Please lend a hand. Abductive (reasoning) 18:39, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ping Abductive, moved from WT:MEDRSCFCF 💌 📧 16:22, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eek, nearly 1,000 views a day! Johnbod (talk) 16:37, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually pretty good evidence for efficacy for IBS /FGID in high quality trials in good journals covered in systematic review and and meta-analysis. I have added these. Jrfw51 (talk) 20:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

tagged reference #13 (per MEDRS)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:02, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Drying (food) is rather a mess. But, looking on the bright side, it seems not to attract the same level of controversy, pseudo-science or promotionalism as most other nutrition-related topics. The most medical claim there is "Dehydrated grapes have been shown to be depleted in antioxidants (Vitamin C, E, ORAC) and B vitamins", which is relatively uncontroversial. Unfortunately, it's sourced to an unidentified author writing on the not-so-wonderful Yahoo! Voices. For now I've just slapped a ^{[unreliable source?]} tag on it, but I wonder if more should be done. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 08:34, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe check Google Scholar and PubMed for better sources.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:42, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

maybe [6]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect from Congenital lobar emphysema to Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease seems not to be correct. The first is a congenital/in newbornage manifesting disease often needing emergency surgery. See Orphanet Zieger M (talk) 11:24, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

COPD is usually not congenital last I checked either. Maybe CLE is a specific form of COPD but probably no more than scarlet fever is a specific form of bacterial infection.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:33, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that they aren't the same thing. I've taken a stab at the Congenital lobar emphysema article, but it's only a start that I can return to flesh out soon. soupvector (talk) 04:00, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've put the ICD-10 code as P25.0, as this is where congenital emphysema "trails" to. However, this code is also used to describe Pulmonary interstitial emphysema. If they're not relatable terms, the code choice may need input from a paediatrician with ICD-10 coding/medical billing knowledge. User talk:Little pob (talk) 08:55, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[7] [8] --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:15, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should it not better be Q33.8 Other congenital malformations of lung? Pulmonary interstitional emphysema is not congenital but aquired due to respiration techniques. (The syntax in enWP ist quite different from deWP) Zieger M (talk) 12:55, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Re:ICD-10 discussion) I've copied the relevant replies to the article talk page for continuation. Little pob (talk) 14:03, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• article could use some help(its a stub)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:39, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The image commons:File:Sobo 1909 260.png, which is a featured picture on Wikipedia and of exceptional quality has been nominated for deletion on grounds that the illustrators are out of this world.

commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sobo 1909 260.png

• The image was published before 1923 in the United States -> PD-US-pre-1923
• The copyright is owned by the author of the atlas, not by the illustrators, Johannes Sobotta
• The independent group Hathitrust as well as Google have deemed this image to be in the public domain as stated at [9].

Please comment or close the request at commons, as I was unable to do despite its non-nature. CFCF 💌 📧 00:22, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a comment. I recommend you not try to forcibly close deletion requests however absurd they are -- that's never a productive approach. Since the image would not be deleted until the end of the process in any case, it's best to let the process play out. Looie496 (talk) 02:19, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize that Commons has nothing like WP:SNOWBALL for things like this, thanks for the tip.CFCF 💌 📧 12:05, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even on en.wikipedia you should never try to "snow close" an AfD for an article you yourself created -- even if it is snowing like a blizzard. Let somebody else do it. Looie496 (talk) 19:25, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I would guess the third point you make [10] is all you need, great illustration--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:49, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Frivolous" is a little unfair to the initiator of the deletion request. It might have been mistaken, but it was coherent and made in good faith. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 12:54, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• need more opinions [11]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:55, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From my understanding

1. This image is PD in the US and therefore all the WPs can use them. Commons however requires the image not only to be PD in the US but also in the first country the content was every published in.
2. A version was published in 1904 in Germany in German and therefore some consider the 1909 US EN published version to be a derivative to which German law still applies. (not sure if that is true)
3. If German law applies the author died 70 years ago so would most likely be PD in Germany in 2 months. However there were two illustrators who could theoretically also be authors. They do not have full names and no one knows their date of death. If they are unknown supposedly copyright ends 100 years after publication. And thus it would still be PD in Germany in 2 months.
4. However some think a last name is sufficient for them to be "known" which would mean copyright would never expire in Germany and these images could never go on Commons. And interesting precedent may be set.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:55, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear medical experts: Is this draft: User:Pawangangwar/sandbox about a recognized medical condition?—Anne Delong (talk) 12:02, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence of such on PubMed and nothing on Google Scholar either. Not a recognized medical condition based on this I'd say. More like a colloquial term for a discomfort, I guess.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:11, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've got it in both right feet. The turmeric cure works, I've seen it myself, but I'm not sure about the roasted ayurvedic herbs. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 13:35, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have two right feet? I thought that people only had two left feet.

At least three of us have right feet fore and aft: Jyt, Roxy, and I. LeadSongDog come howl! 13:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is this really a "thing", or is it basically a case of foot pain caused by over-use? And how do you differentiate it from things like poor posture or plantar fasciitis? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:13, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted as untouched for more than 6 months. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see that it's been deleted now. Thanks for helping decide its fate.—Anne Delong (talk) 20:58, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Recent spate of editing on this article, and some disagreement over source quality and how to summarize. More eyes welcome. Alexbrn (talk) 17:29, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

will keep eye on--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:44, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(add)[12] some activity --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:32, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• • Weighted in aswell. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:46, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We've had an AFD, that ended in delete, now a new article has been created. It's different enough to invalidate G4, but I think it needs an eye from someone who knows anything about the topic. Thanks. Courcelles (talk) 01:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

will look--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please look harder. I think the first source is not a review. In fact, there are several sources that fail WP:MEDRS. The first sentence is incoherent. It does not say what is the "complex mixtures of chemical agents". That's because it is a marketing gimmick. User:Courcelles, the article is clearly an advertisement. QuackGuru (talk) 16:17, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't figure out what brand is being promoted from the article, then it's not "clearly an advertisement". "Buy Flim Flam Futuristic if you have dry skin" is clearly an advertisement. "There's a dosage form that's used in multiple products, none of which are mentioned by name anywhere in the article" is not clearly an advertisement.

I think this is unlikely to be deleted at AFD, and especially not on the grounds previously claimed (e.g., "fails GNG", but there are a dozen journal articles cited). Therefore, we should stop worrying about it. The more relevant question is whether a Shielding lotion is the same thing as a Barrier cream. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dr. James Schultz might have an opinion on that question. We could WP:MERGE the two if they are sufficiently similar. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:53, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a class of lotions, the particular ingredients of a shielding lotion will depend on the manufacturer and product. What sets a shielding lotion apart from a standard lotion or moisturizer is the fact that while a standard lotion or moisturizer coats the skin with a petroleum or wax-based substance, a shielding lotion simply binds with the dead skin cells to reinforce the exterior layer of skin cells. If you know of a more appropriate way to explain this, I'm open to suggestions. Dr. James Schultz (talk) 16:58, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Quackguru your right,..thats why I have therefore commented on the article talk page--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:59, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken great lengths to write this article from a neutral position. I even left out research that was conducted by manufacturers in an attempt to be informative but not promotional.

My interest in this subject is simply to bring light to an important topic that has yet to be adequately addressed in Wikipedia. As a class of lotion that has been recognized and discussed in a pretty wide range of medical journals and studies, it warrants being addressed. But as shielding lotions are a class in themselves and cannot be effectively covered in Moisturizer or Lotion, I feel it should have its own article. Again, I am all for neutrality and substantiality, so I'm always open to suggestions on improving the article. Dr. James Schultz (talk) 17:14, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WhatamIdoing asked about barrier creams, not moisturizers. Almost all of the references in your article refer to barrier creams. "Shielding lotion" seems to be a marketing term that is rarely used in the literature: "Skin MD Natural [...] launched their lotion in social media and created interest in the phrase “shielding lotion” as a search term. [...] There are now search queries for their brand and the generic phrase “shielding lotion” in many countries in the world."[13] KateWishing (talk) 17:21, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. James Schultz, do you think these are studies or WP:MEDRS compliant reviews?

Dr. James Schultz, please read my concerns again. The first sentence is poorly written because our readers do not no what the difference is. Is it intentionally vague because it is a marketing scam? QuackGuru (talk) 17:27, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KateWishing, I hope the severe MEDRS violations will not be merged. QuackGuru (talk) 17:27, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not overly familiar with this website. It came up in the search results when I was writing the article. The reason much of the research refers to "barrier creams" is because while shielding lotions are technically barrier creams, not all barrier creams qualify as a shielding lotion. Many barrier creams actually coat the outer layer of skin, but a shielding lotion simply reinforces the already existent outer layer of skin.Dr. James Schultz (talk) 17:33, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would also point out that the pdf file you cited, KateWishing, mentions a blogging campaign to "popularize" the search term "Shielding Lotion", many reputable scholarly sources (not blogs) specifically use the terminology "Shielding Lotion" ^[1][2][3] (to name a few)Dr. James Schultz (talk) 17:38, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm a bit puzzled by the history. I wasn't aware of the existence of the version that was deleted, and can't look at it to see who created it, but I notice that the "Dr. James Schultz" account is brand new yet clearly has a lot of editing experience. Is this the same editor who created the earlier article? It seems very likely, and if so there is deception going on here. Let me remind "Dr. James Schultz" that undisclosed paid editing is a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use. Looie496 (talk) 17:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did not write the original article. In fact I wasn't aware that there even was a previous article until I came across the discussion for deletion. Dr. James Schultz (talk) 17:42, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My previous editing experience stems from some minor past editing experience in 2008 and my ability to look things up and read how to use templates and what not. Dr. James Schultz (talk) 17:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Courcelles has restored the history of the deleted version, which is very helpful. I notice that a Google Scholar search for "shielding lotion" (in quotes) finds hardly anything, but one thing it does find is http://www.saiompublications.com/journal/index.php/ISSN-2347-7571/article/download/516/pdf_113, which contains this illuminating passage: "For every marketer it is very important that customer is aware about his product, then only he thinks about putting the product into the consideration set of the consumer and finally purchase. Skin MD Natural used this media to increase the brand awareness. They launched their lotion in social media and created interest in the phrase 'shielding lotion' as a search term. It got huge success as there were more than 400 mommy bloggers who wrote about the product and it spread across various social media sites like Stumble Upon, curtsy and delicious." Looie496 (talk) 18:18, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed redirect to Barrier cream

Dr. James Schultz, do you think these are studies or WP:MEDRS compliant reviews? If my question is not answered and the page is not improved I think it is best the page is redirected soon. QuackGuru (talk) 17:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

QuackGuru, what are you specifically asking? The studies are relevant and valid for the reason's I already outlined. The problem with redirecting Shielding lotion to Barrier Creams is that while shielding lotions do qualify as a type of barrier cream, not all barrier creams are shielding lotions. The same reasoning applies to Moisturizers having their own page rather than being redirected to Lotion. Dr. James Schultz (talk) 17:57, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will ask again. Are they WP:MEDRS compliant reviews[14]? QuackGuru (talk) 17:59, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. U.S. National Institutes of Health is a recognized repository of clinical studies and each study is complete with results. Dr. James Schultz (talk) 18:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Studies are not reviews.[15][16] Primary sources are usually not allowed per MEDRS. This change is unsourced? QuackGuru (talk) 18:16, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These are Clinical Studies, as the section states and there is nothing in WP:MEDRS that says they are not permitted. What it says is that when cited to substantiate a piece of information, reliable secondary sources must also be used. In this case, nothing is being substantiated by these studies. They are merely listed for informational purposes, just like adding the dosage chart and other information. Dr. James Schultz (talk) 18:24, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:MEDRS: "The best evidence is mainly from meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).[12] Systematic reviews of literature of overall good quality and consistency, addressing specific recommendation, have less reliability when they include non-randomized studies.[13]"

Please remove all the MEDRS violations including all the studies and all the unsourced text or redirect page. Thanks. QuackGuru (talk) 18:29, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just going to be honest here. The criticism about this article has evolved from that it was promotional in nature, to not being notable, to being a neologism and now an attempt to redirect it to another article as well as a barrage of criticism about the validity of listing valid clinical studies in the article. It really seems like an attack on the article itself because some folks just don't want it to be an article. As soon as one criticism gets discredited, someone throws out another criticism. Dr. James Schultz (talk) 18:29, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

QuackGuru I will not remove the clinical studies. You are misinterpreting the MEDRS. Dr. James Schultz (talk) 18:31, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are adding primary sources[17][18] and unsourced text.[19] The page is unencyclopedic. QuackGuru (talk) 18:33, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're misinterpreting things and taking things out of context. There is not prohibition against using studies, provided they are cited from reliable sources, which the U.S. National Institutes of Health is. In cases where studies are cited to prove something, additional secondary sources are required. In this case, that does not apply because nothing is being "proven" by these studies. Dr. James Schultz (talk) 18:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did remove the unsourced text you spoke of.Dr. James Schultz (talk) 18:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Shielding_lotion#Clinical studies section is a problem. It is not encyclopedic. A list does not improve the page. Please cite reviews.

The first sentence says "A shielding lotion is a complex mixture of chemical agents that bond with dead skin cells on the outer layer of the skin (epidermis) to form a protective external layer." Which review (not study) verifies the claim? The part "complex mixture of chemical agents" is incoherent. Is it because there is no complex mixture? QuackGuru (talk) 18:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to recall reading somewhere on Wikipedia that "it is not encyclopedic" is not a valid argument for deletion of something, as we all have our own ideas what is and isn't "encyclopedic". Dr. James Schultz (talk) 18:58, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As for the sentence in question, what makes it complex is the fact that the actual chemical substances used differ from shielding lotion to shielding lotion. In fact, this very statement is present in many cosmetic-related articles including Moisturizer... Now that you brought yet another complaint up, QuackGuru let me ask you, are you just trying to get this article deleted, no matter what it takes, cause that is exactly what it looks like. If that's the case, let me know and I'll simply stop responding to every new criticism you throw at my article. Dr. James Schultz (talk) 18:59, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I gave you an opportunity to verify the claim using a review. For now I tagged the text. Please provide a review or reviews to verify the claims. QuackGuru (talk) 19:07, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You plastered tags all over the article about medical citations, stating that the citations are "unreliable medical source". The first is directly taken from Dimensions of Critical Care Nursing, uses the terminology "Shielding Lotion" and affirms exactly what I stated in the sentence. The second comes from the Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology, another valid source for medical information. The bulk of your (recent) criticisms stem from your confusion about the barrier cream / shielding lotion relationship. Nonetheless, your steadily evolving criticisms and present tagging probably falls under WP:CTDAPE. Dr. James Schultz (talk) 19:18, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are not using reviews and there is unsourced text in the article. Please do not remove the tags without fixing the problems.

I did find a review (PMID 18940542). The part "as sunscreen,[9]" is sourced to a review but there may be a problem. I have a copy of the PDF file. I could not verify the claim. Shielding sunscreens are different than shielding lotions. Please provide verification. QuackGuru (talk) 19:33, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you really suggesting that "reviews" are the only reliable source to validate content? That isn't accurate at all. Medical journals are actually the "prefered" sources for medical articles, not "reviews". Dr. James Schultz (talk) 19:35, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you a question about verification. Please reply or delete the claim from the article. QuackGuru (talk) 19:37, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The tags I removed you had no business adding. The sources are reliable in every sense of the word according to WP:MEDRS Dr. James Schultz (talk) 19:38, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I asked you a question about verification. Please reply or delete the claim from the article. QuackGuru (talk) 19:38, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm through arguing with you. Either nominate the article for whatever or leave it alone. I used legitimate sources that abide by WP:MEDRS. I am continuing to work on it and add more content and sources, but there isn't an article in Wikipedia that sources every single line of text, so quit breaking my balls here. Thanks. Dr. James Schultz (talk) 19:40, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are refusing to provide verification. This suggests the text FV. The source does not mention "Shielding lotion". You are also using sources that are not reviews and are not about "Shielding lotion". QuackGuru (talk) 19:42, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shielding lotions are a type of barrier lotion. Did you not get that? Dr. James Schultz (talk) 19:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You claim "there isn't an article in Wikipedia that sources every single line of text" I created new articles that are completely sourced using reviews and WP:MEDORG compliant sources. See Electronic cigarette aerosol for example.

"Shielding lotions are a type of barrier lotion." does not verify the claim. QuackGuru (talk) 19:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You think you clarified the wording? Please cite a review that verifies the claim or delete the sentence.

Please show not assert how these sources are valid. I think one is not a review and the other (PMID 17134447) source is about barrier creams. There is a separate page for barrier creams. QuackGuru (talk) 20:24, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quack, I think that you can best promote Wikipedia's aims by backing off for a bit. We've got a new, occasional visitor, and he actually knows what he's talking about. This is the kind of editor that pro-science editors desperately want to keep here. Sure, he doesn't know everything about Wikipedia's weird rules, but you are being over-zealous and combative in enforcing guidelines that not only permit far more types of sources than review articles, but which also explicitly state at the top that we should make occasional exceptions. If you want to help, then please go work on serious problems, which do not happen to include someone accurately citing primary, peer-reviewed sources with no industry funding. Start replacing the dozens of primary sources in medicinal mushrooms with reviews and textbooks, if you can't think of anything else to do.

Dr. James Schultz, all I can really say is: Welcome to Wikipedia. I'm sorry that your efforts have been met this way. You might be interested in Wikipedia:Ten Simple Rules for Editing Wikipedia. Also, please don't quit. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:32, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And now for something completely different

After some investigation I believe it would actually be possible for us to have a separate article on this topic. Here is what it would look like:

Shielding lotion is a term coined around 2005 by a company called California 21st Century Formulations to describe a group of skin cream products called Skin MD Natural.^[1] The term was promoted by the internet marketing agency Expansion Plus, who ran a highly successful campaign that relied on planting information in social media so that it would be picked up and spread virally.^[2] The basic principle was to place articles on the skinmdnatural.com website that appeared to be reviews, and then distribute links via news sites and press releases, so that the purported reviews would be replicated elsewhere.^[3]

The publicity material claims that these "shielding lotions" are a superior version of barrier creams, which are sometimes used for skin protection by athletes and other people who may be exposed to harmful substances, although their efficacy has long been disputed.^[4] The claims of superiority for "shielding lotions" have not been tested scientifically, however.

A Wikipedia article on this topic was created in 2008 by an editor who made a total of three edits and then fell silent. In spite of a strongly promotional tone the article continued to exist in essentially the same form until 2015.

What do you think? Looie496 (talk) 20:30, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are issues with some of the text. This (PMID 17134447) source is about barrier creams. QuackGuru (talk) 20:45, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My view is that the web sources are reliable for the purposes for which I used them. And I know that the second source is about barrier creams -- it is intended to support the statement that the efficacy of barrier creams has long been disputed. Looie496 (talk) 21:06, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is some primary sources and MEDRS violations and unsourced text and text that FV. QuackGuru (talk) 21:25, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is sourced. Not sure what that source is doing on that page. QuackGuru (talk) 21:35, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem, Looie496, is that "Shielding Lotion" was not "coined" in 2005. It was already in use as far back as the 1960s, as I illustrated in the sources. And QuackGuru, your article on e-cigarettes is full of sources that are not "reviews". I don't know what your deal is with "reviews", but much of your source material is of the exact same type as what I used. Dr. James Schultz (talk) 21:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to advise you again to closely read Wikipedia's terms of use. You might not be aware that they were revised a few months ago to include a strong requirement for disclosure of sponsored editing. Violating the terms of use carries with it a risk of bringing unwanted attention to the sponsoring agency. Looie496 (talk) 21:28, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looie496 I am not a paid writer and I have not once promoted any company or manufacturer anywhere in the article. I am a dermatologist. I have had to address 8 different criticisms since writing this article so far. Each time one criticism gets addressed, another comes up and this last one is an indictment against my own personal character and motivations. This is my final contribution to this discussion. I have addressed every criticism that has come up and do not feel compelled to remain on the defensive against every new "concern" that comes up. You gentlemen have a wonderful day. Dr. James Schultz (talk) 21:42, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the quotation marks violated a copyvio. QuackGuru (talk) 21:51, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The copyvio was restored. QuackGuru (talk) 21:55, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looie496, I think that your version would get deleted as WP:NEO. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:34, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article was recently deleted and then a new article popped up littered with too many problems. User:Dr. James Schultz, I'm done and I'm taking the page off of my watchlist. I had enough. QuackGuru (talk) 22:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have merged the articles in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:52, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Face lift dentistry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Not sure if this topic even merits an article, but it's always been a bit of a mess and with recent edits may be getting worse. Thoughts and eyes welcome. Alexbrn (talk) 02:08, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Due to lack of editor interest dentistry articles are very commonly in poor condition. Seems like an advertising gimmick. There is no revolutionary, notable technique here, this is standard treatment given a fancy name. Really this is increasing occlusal vertical dimension, repairing lost lower facial height due to the various forms of tooth wear. I also suspect an article is not needed for this topic. Can be dealt with on tooth wear and related articles. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 07:29, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look at this earlier, and it was not obvious to me how I could salvage any of this by merging and redirecting. This might need someone who knows more about it, or it might need a trip to AFD. An article about one dentist's trademarked package of services is probably not actually notable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind [20]. Probably this is for the best, I just ran a quick google books and pubmed search, article title was not found. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 10:43, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pubmed and Google book may not include brand new technology. I consider some sources like these reliable: http://www.thedoctorstv.com/videos/face-lift-dentistry, and ABC TV channel: http://www.thedoctorstv.com/videos/face-lift-dentistry, and Wall Street Journal: http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303828304575180022107327604.

It seems there is currently a conflict of this article, and a request of dispute has been sent to the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request to conduct an open discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indepentten (talk • contribs) 16:04, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indepentten, Need 2 or more reliable sources (as defined by the guideline WP:MEDRS) to justify the existence of this article. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 19:37, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, you need two or more reliable sources, as defined by Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Two (detailed) newspaper articles about the subject would be enough. (Remember, a "medical" subject can be WP:Notable for non-medical reasons, and MEDRS does not apply to non-biomedical statements.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:19, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Ferguson Yes, I understand that well, and I have more than 15 sources, but some editors deleted most of them without any discussion with me, and then redirect the article to a different article, and that is the reason I am doing a dispute for an open discussion with those editors who did not follow wiki rules. Indepentten (talk) 13:19, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indepentten What wiki rules did they break? -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 13:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

None. Looks like WP:BRD is failing at the discuss step. Indepentten, with the concerns raised (eg. reads like an advert, standard treatment by a new name etc), consider creating and working on the article in your sandbox, or at Face lift dentistry/draft, then doing an WP:AFC submission. However, I have a feeling the best place for this content will be as a brief example at cosmetic dentistry. Little pob (talk) 14:09, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Roxy the dog The rule they broke is WP:5P. Indepentten (talk) 16:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How? -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 18:23, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"When it is a major edit, discuss it with the editor first". But they were deleting my work while I was working on it, at least it was rude and impolite morally, isn't it? Leave alone no discussion or explanation at all and re-directing it. Wikipedia is a wiki place, but it has rules following the respect and moral standards of human life. In addition, if there are more than 15 references from reliable and well-known sources, it is still unacceptable, then I think more than 50% of wiki articles should be deleted or redirected first. Indepentten (talk) 19:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The text you wrote inside quotation marks isn't actually a "rule". It's often a smart idea, but WP:Be bold is the official guideline. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does anybody have the Project Medicine Crowbar of Understanding handy? -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 08:21, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Little pob Thank you for the suggestions, wiki becomes a much better place because of people like you. Indepentten (talk) 16:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WhatamIdoing I note your correction and thanks for pointing this out. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 19:03, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments on Draft:Psychoterratic Illnesses are welcomed. Please use Preferences → Gadgets → Yet Another AFC Helper Script, or use {{afc comment|your comment here}} directly in the draft. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 11:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

have commented on the draft it basically needs to follow Wikipedia:Citing_sources (once inline reference is done, reference #3 is not MEDRS compliant see Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:06, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed your comment, because it is factually wrong. The article already uses inline citations throughout. The formatting of those citations is unpopular, but it is "legal". Please read Wikipedia:Inline citation#Manual citations if you would like to know more about this citation style.

Also, as a general note for everyone, AFC has exactly one job: to determine whether a submitted article should be deleted on grounds of non-notability. Citation styles, links, copyediting, etc., are completely irrelevant. AFC drafts should never be declined on the grounds that you don't like the formatting of the citations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:04, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the citation style per [21] makes it easier to see references like #3 (already listed above) which is a blog--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This might qualify for deletion under WP:NEO. Talk:Solastalgia (User:Dbachmann may remember that conversation) is an enlightening read. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:09, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• need more editors to review article--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:36, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments on Draft:Ileal interposition are welcomed. Please use Preferences → Gadgets → Yet Another AFC Helper Script, or use {{afc comment|your comment here}} directly in the draft. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 14:44, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the reviewer Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#HOWTO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:31, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It appears the newly created article Neuroangiogenesis is the subject of some sort of student editing going on at the University of Edinburgh. Eyes on this article would be appreciated. Everymorning (talk) 16:08, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They are participating in a Wikipedia training workshop according to their user pages, and the quality of their editing looks very good. Looie496 (talk) 16:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

will look--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:37, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

have not had time for this very important article, any help is appreciated--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:36, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone upload this video for Electronic cigarette#Frequency? User:Sizeofint, I think this may be useful to upload. The electronic cigarette page does not have any videos. QuackGuru (talk) 20:16, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That should work Sizeofint (talk) 21:42, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sizeofint, can you upload it? QuackGuru (talk) 21:49, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Working on it now. Sizeofint (talk) 21:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. QuackGuru (talk) 21:55, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Finished. Sizeofint (talk) 21:59, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• great source--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:48, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tentatively planning a WPMedicine event in the Philadelphia area for Spring 2016, and would love to get the input and assistance of any MD/DO/PhD editors who would be interested in participating. If you're geographically proximate, and marginally interested, let me know. Richardjames444 (talk) 21:05, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• great initiative--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:18, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have proposed this here on Wikidata.

This proposal is NOT to have WPs references be pulled from Wikidata. But having all PMIDs within Wikidata would be very powerful.

For all PMIDs that are systematic reviews we are than hoping to list all RCTs that are within the systematic review in question.

This will than allow us to have a bot that creates a list of all RCTs within medical articles for which their is a systematic review that contains the RCT in question. This will make updating / releasing RCTs on WP easier.

Peoples thoughts appreciated. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:05, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Just to make sure that I understand this proposal, is the ultimate intention to facilitate the replacement of primary sources [randomized clinical trials (RCTs)] with secondary systematic reviews and/or the most up-to-date reviews? (For background, see Trials in PubMed linking to systematic reviews). But does this require Wikidata? If you use Wikidata to solve a problem, now you have two problems. A bot could do this completely independently of Wikidata. Boghog (talk) 09:56, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • True it could be done without Wikidata. One however wants a list of RCTs contained in a review for the bot run. Rather than a list of reviews that contain an RCT. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:12, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is behind this request? What exactly would the bot run do? Just create lists? If would be easier to do this without resorting to WikiData. Given a pmid for a RCT, pubmed provides a list of systematic reviews that mention that RCT. What you are asking for is the reverse. I would not be surprised if this data was already available directly from PubMed. If it isn't, it would not be that hard to create a reverse list by downloading the forward lists from PubMed and writing a script to transform the forward into reverse lists. Using WikiData for this task would make more sense if there was some specific one-to-one link between an RCT and a Wikipedia article. With a few notable exceptions (for example Women's Health Initiative), we normally do not have specific Wikipedia articles about individual clinical trials. So I am still puzzled why it is necessary or even desirable to resort to WikiData for this task. Furthermore it is not clear to me what the task is. Boghog (talk) 14:57, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • The belief that references are important. That having the ability to add further meta data could have many useful research purposes and also be useful for the improvement of Wikipedia. The task is similar to that of the Cochrane update bot. Except this will suggest Cochrane reviews and other reviews which could be used to update any RCTs we are using.
      • Additionally it may allow the searching for RCTs about a medications which are not already included in a Cochrane review. This would make it easier for Cochrane authors to determine when they need to update the review. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:26, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, it is now clear that you are requesting a forward list that PubMed already provides and the task is to suggest systematic review citations that can be used to augment or replace RCT citations. Correct? If so, the task is to scan all medical related articles that contain citations to primary RCT publications and provide a list of suggested systematic reviews for each of these RCTs. This list could also be used to identify cited RCTs for which a corresponding review article is currently lacking. Also correct? I still fail to see why it is necessary to involve WikiData. Does the Cochrane update bot use WikiData? IMHO, it would make more sense to create maintenance categories to flag articles that (1) contain a reference to a RCT that does not also cite the most up-to-date systematic review and (2) articles that contain a reference to an RCT for which a corresponding review does not yet exist. Boghog (talk) 16:00, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Am meeting with people from the NIH and Cochrane on this topic. We are discussing what is available and what would be useful. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:27, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Boghog, there could be several different ways to accomplish this on Wikipedia English. But it appears that other language Wikipedia's would find the data useful, too. So, putting it in Wikidata would make it useful across the different languages Wikipedias. Also since RCT are done all around the world in research centers, a central place to collaborate makes sense. Most likely there is a later aspect of this project that could benefit from human scrutiny of the data. Pulling people from around the world to improve the data about people and institutions from around the world makes Wikidata the perfect place to hold the data. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 17:47, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The dopamine article is now at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. Any interested editor is invited to participate in the review. Looie496 (talk) 14:47, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Skipping GA? There is no requirement to do so, but it might be easier to take this in steps and first run it through the less rigorous GA process. Also the FAC reviewers might be more sympathetic to an article that has already been promoted to GA. Boghog (talk) 15:11, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

agree ( GA then FA)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:47, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a lot with GA in the past, and it's an uneven process. Some reviews are great, and some are merely an exercise in frustration (see: "This is a famous scientific award. You should add a section about the food that's served at the celebratory dinner" and "This is about a particular religious sect's view on this subject. It says at the top, 'for non-religious aspects, see this completely separate article'. So why does this article talk so much about that one religious organization?" and many other instances of incompetence). As a result, if an editor feels the article is ready for FAC, then I have no objection to skipping GA and heading straight to FAC. The responses there may be more difficult and even unfriendly, and the article may fail, but the reviews tend to be higher quality. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:07, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken articles through the FA and GA processes, and reviewed articles for both. So it might be a bad idea, but I didn't do it out of ignorance. Looie496 (talk) 20:19, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. Most FAC candidates these days are not GAs; I suspect that analysis might show that FACs that are GAs are slightly less likely to pass. The GA process can take months, and seems wholly random, depending on the sole reviewer. The chances of a reviewer with knowledge of the subject is low. Peer review is a better preliminary step, but often attracts few comments. This article seems clearly at/above GA standard (whatever that is), but some of the sources are rather older than MEDRS likes - I don't know if more recent ones exist. Johnbod (talk) 12:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've been paying attention to that point. Basically there is no place where I could find a "better" source (in the MEDRS sense) than the one that is cited -- with perhaps one exception: for the Dahlstrom-Fuxe classification of aminergic areas, I thought it made more sense to cite their original paper rather than any of the numerous later reviews that use their schema. Still, the article covers a lot of ground, and I welcome sourcing improvements if anybody is aware of superior sources for anything. Looie496 (talk) 15:13, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a quick check for any accessibility issues and it's in very good shape. I added the scope attributes for the column headers in the table. The {{infobox neurotransmitter}} needed to be fixed because it was showing "{{{catalog number}}}" as its image alt text, so I've also now added the ability for that infobox to use an alt parameter and updated the documentation. --RexxS (talk) 00:51, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's cool. Looie496 (talk) 12:13, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've never thought that GA is a necessary step on the path to FA. They are separate processes, and the criteria are different. In particular, the prose standards are higher for FA, so if you're shooting for FA, there's no point writing only GA standard prose, only to have to rewrite it all over again up to FA standard later on.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:19, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know anything about Digital motion X-ray? There's a list of WP:General references at the end, but the newest are 11 years old. I don't know if these are important reference works (e.g., is the 1978 one the first paper describing the technique?) that should be kept under ==Further reading==, or if it's just a list of everything that PubMed had on a given date. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[22] digital motion x-ray (DMX) are able to adequately depict cervical instability pathology--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:23, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are far newer studies, but I don't think many actually discuss the technique in great detail. Your best bet would probably be to find a book. I'll dig into my troves. CFCF 💌 📧 09:47, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Also note that we have material like this on commons, although I can't find it off the top of my head. CFCF 💌 📧 09:48, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not the best image, for a scrollable version see: Commons:Category:Normal_barium_swallow_Case_001

CFCF 💌 📧 09:52, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

it seems a good image/DMX...IMO(good idea to search Commons)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:25, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just read that the article refers to non-fluoroscopic images. I don't know if we have any.CFCF 💌 📧 13:02, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sizeofint, can you upload this video for Electronic cigarette#Smoking cessation? This is a really good video. QuackGuru (talk) 05:25, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's very specific to a particular American ad campaign. I don't think I would support it being in the article. Johnbod (talk) 12:42, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uploaded but since Commons has a limit of 100 MB I had to reduce the quality. Didn't watch it through so I can't comment on the content, however it may be a bit on the long side to place in the article. There may be a way to show only certain sections of the video. I haven't really looked into it. Sizeofint (talk) 20:47, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sizeofint – Commons has no filesize limit, and it is very easy to upload files up to 1GB (above that you need to host a FTP-server). To upload files between 100–1000MB check the section "Chunked uploads for files over 5 MB in Upload Wizard" at [23]. CFCF 💌 📧 22:15, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, I did not know that. I'll replace it with a better version then. Sizeofint (talk) 03:45, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

videos should be used on more (or almost all) articles as they enhance the topic...good move--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:58, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AustralianRupert of WP:MILHIST previously gave a lot of helpful comments from A-class review at Veterans benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder in the United States.

I think the article Veterans benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder in the United States still has some major issues = it reads more like a manual or guide and not encyclopedic, doesn't read like a descriptive encyclopedic article.

And I think the issues AustralianRupert already mentioned at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Veterans benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder in the United States of:

1. WP:NOTGUIDE
2. WP:EDITORIALIZING

I think these above issues are still the most obvious glaring areas where there could be significant improvements made.

Maybe someone from this WikiProject could leave some more specific comments about that, at Talk:Veterans benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder in the United States/GA1 ?

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt (talk) 03:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

have commented (at talk)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:40, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is something of a trainwreck. It might be possible to fix, but I have my doubts if it is worth the bother. Opinions? Anyone want to tackle it? LeadSongDog come howl! 15:49, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PubMed seems to have several reviews [24]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:52, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One fundamental mistake it makes is to cover only those parasites that cause disease, which many don't. Johnbod (talk) 18:19, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised at how rarely it's vandalized. I expected the page history to be filled with edits like "A human parasite is my ex-boyfriend". WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, odd that this has avoided our attention for so long (it isn't even tagged to our project). To me it seems like a broad concept article that doesn't really provide anything useful. I'd probably try to merge and redirect it to Parasitic disease or make a list out of it. CFCF 💌 📧 11:18, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the general biological concept must come first, not the specific medical implications. Johnbod (talk) 14:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since there's already a List of parasites of humans (linked from the last section of the article) we can probably lose that whole last section without losing content. The remainder seems to all be rather shabby history. Parasitology has a well written section Parasitology#Medical parasitology which links to Human parasite as "main", that might best be changed to target the list article.LeadSongDog come howl! 19:32, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone interested in helping out with two articles? I came across Medical Common Sense at AfD and the work appears to have been pretty influential and controversial in its day - it looks like its author Edward Bliss Foote (whose article also needs work) was even arrested for publishing it. Well, that or its expanded version. I'm having some trouble looking for sources since I'm not as savvy knowing where to look for medical related books as I am with popular fiction and more recent works. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:48, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I was wondering if anyone knew a specific place to find a listing of Foote's work. A lot of his work is mentioned at the same time and while some of it is obviously an expansion of an earlier work, some portions aren't. I'm finding evidence that suggests that "Words in Pearl for the Married" is the material that he removed from "Medical Common Sense" (per this article), but I'd like to be able to make sure of this before I outright claim this in the article. I can only do so much digging on this since I have some schoolwork I need to complete before this weekend. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:19, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The book itself (or at least the third revision) is on Archive.org.[25] With a quick glance at the contents pages for part IV, I couldn't see a section titled "Words in Pearl for the Married". However, downloading the plain text version from openlibrary.org[26] and searching is probably the quickest way of checking the whole text. Little pob (talk) 08:30, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• it might be best to merge both articles...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:06, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm wondering that as well, but I'm hesitant to suggest that before looking into the author as a whole more fully. His article is pretty nonexistent and it needs to be fleshed out. I'm finding some mention of him as a whole and while he's viewed as an important figure in women's rights/birth control somewhat, I don't know that all of it is specific to this book. I don't want to argue for a merge, only for it to end up that there's enough of this separate from the book to where the book would merit its own article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:21, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For lists of works, see [27] and OL 187357ALeadSongDog come howl! 20:22, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

both links are very useful--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion regarding if we should use "honey bucket" or "bucket toilet" here Talk:Honey_bucket#Requested move 7 October 2015

Additional thoughts appreciated. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:08, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about anyone else, but that discussion is possibly the most depressing thing I've ever experienced on wikipedia. JMWt (talk) 17:13, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

all discussions are important (though it was different)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:35, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, a lot of discussions would be best avoided. It depresses me as well, but I'm happy it can be closed soon enough. CFCF 💌 📧 21:16, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This has begun. On the linked page there are links to YouTube streams of some of the presentations. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:12, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• great information--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:40, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to let you know about a recently published article in the journal BMJ Open that tried to "evaluate accuracy of content and readability level of English Wikipedia articles on cardiovascular diseases": "Accuracy and readability of cardiovascular entries on Wikipedia: are they reliable learning resources for medical students?". BMJ Open. 5: e008187. 2015. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008187. {{cite journal}}: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors= (help) --sentausa (talk) 12:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The four topics rated "poor": Acute pericarditis, Angina pectoris, Prosthetic heart valves, Pulmonic regurgitation. KateWishing (talk) 13:11, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem under the "accuracy" component of the study is incompleteness. Falsehoods don't seem to be an issue.

"The highest score was 45 for the article on deep vein thrombosis while the lowest was 28 for the article on acute pericarditis. The 47 Wikipedia articles had a median score=33, IQR=6—the highest possible score was 50. Out of the 47 entries, 4 (8.5%) articles scored 40 or higher, described as Good as per our cut-off system, 39 (83%) articles scored 30 to 39, described as Moderate as per our cut-off system and 4 (8.5%) scored less than 30, described as Poor as per our cut-off system. We did not observe vandalism of the 47 entries during the conduction of the study."

User:Biosthmors had shepherded Deep vein thrombosis through Wikipedia's internal peer review process twice in the year before the study date. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:11, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting copyright question concerning these images is whether they can be considered under the license {{PD-simple}}. Would be interesting to release all the images instead of only two which may be permitted to illustrate the article Holtzman Inkblot Test:

• Examples
• 
• 

CFCF 💌 📧 12:46, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]