316:, but those daughter articles aren't fully cited and are very technical. A non-technical, referenced, comprehensive, encyclopedic overview/summary of diagnosis and treatment would help. Similar for prognosis, in terms of answering basic layperson questions about the prognosis for latent and active TB patients. Some of the prose needs polishing, relying heavily on parenthetical inserts, which should be converted to prose. In terms of a global view, work is needed to reflect more geographic regions than the UK.
573:- All inline citations citing web sources need the date they were last accessed. If they then become dead links, they can be retrieved more easily using the Wayback Machine on www.archive.org. Minor work needs to be done to the article (a few more cites here and there maybe), but insufficient enough for me to vote it for FARC. I think this article should avoid FARC.
517:
quality of references are good, Tim and I have both worked at copy editing, but my remaining concerns are that we get a better overview of prognosis, diagnosis and treatment, another set of eyes on copyedit, and the blessings of several WikiPhysicians on content. If we can get someone to do this small bit of remaining work, we could possibly avoid FARC.
598:
I've pestered the
Medical Projects and Wikiphysicians, and no one has objected, so considering that the article is now organized, referenced, cruft cleaned up, and copy-edited, I think we can avoid FARC. I am surprised at the level of vandalism this article gets, though, and hope several people will
449:
I feel the "Other names" section will need inline citations. Also the introduction to the "Prevention" section will need citations (as I'm curious as to where the three priority strategies came from). Good luck to editors - one could be adding inline citations until
Doomsday (good work by the way)!
189:
article so it is less US-centric and actually applicable to people elsewhere. I've got together some decent references on my desk and I'm planning to do that over the next few days. The current UK NICE guidelines on TB are MASSIVE and dwarf even the CDC guidelines. Currently trying to recover from a
77:
I've made an effort to resolve the organisational problems I found with this article. However, I am still concerned that it has only 13 inline references from 11 sources. Of its eight general references, three have abstracts available, so they could be easily matched with the statements they support.
459:
eeek, I feel like other names fall into the realm of general information. Maybe we can get an opinion from a
Wikiphysician. TimVickers has been working his tail off on the article. Tim, where do you think it stands? I wish we could get a fresh set of eyes to look at it, to see what else needs to
137:
doesn't cite PMIDs, has an
External link farm, the lead is overly technical and not a compelling summary, the article mixes citation styles and uses weasle words. Adding images might make it pretty, but won't address the major problems :-) I've been working my way through the medical articles, and
609:
It's at the level where if I came across it, I wouldn't nominate it for FAR. On the other hand, I did come across one piece of weak prose in the lead, which I fixed, but I wonder whether there is more. I don't have time to read through all of it again just now. So if everybody else is happy, we can
516:
TimVickers has made great progress, and I'd rate the article higher on FA standards than his seven out of ten: I give it an 8. But further review is needed, there's still some work to be done, shall we keep it moving to FARC, and encourage other physicians to review? The referencing is complete,
277:
It looks good, Tim. The only thing you might do differently is italicize the journal name instead of the article name: it looks like that will maintain consistency with the cite template that was in use there. But don't worry about that: a layperson (like me :-) can go in and fix refs anytime -
537:
I think you've done a stellar job so far, and don't see that there's much else you can do. I'm not sure what's going on with the recent anon edits, though—keeping the article on your watchlist might be helpful? Since I'm a layperson, I'm having a hard time sorting out vandalism from legitimate
325:
More: some of the data needs to be verified and updated. For example, WHO says 1.7 million deaths annually, while CDC says 2 million. There are some specific incidence numbers from a media report which I can't match to any TB database numbers: relying on media reports in scientific articles
330:
It would be better to cite that data from a health organization, and I'm wondering why so much specific data is given for London and not for other areas of the world? If it's because London provides an example of what is happening in
European urban areas, that needs to be better explained and
299:, cleaned up the opening list, cleaned up some references, and did some copy editing. The article is still mostly unreferenced, though, and some of the text is awful. It also seems to focus a lot on the UK. It still needs a lot of work.
252:
You have the entire month of
October, and more time is usually granted when progress is being made. The process is at least two full weeks in review, followed by at least two weeks in FARC. Any chance of making Tuberculosis the MCOTW?
312:, and TimVickers has added some inline cites, but the article is still vastly undercited and not yet comprehensive. Some important sections (Diagnosis and Treatment) are very brief, relying on daughter articles via
425:
I'm adding cite tags as I go through it: I still don't understand the preponderance of UK-specific information, and the lack of information relevant to sectors of the world where TS is very big problem.
500:
Yes, quite right. I've added citations for the beginning of the
Prevention section and am going to be removing the strange focus on the UK. I also added refs for the Other Names section.
53:
649:
Well I've stated I feel this one's a keep without FARC. If anybody does have actionable actions though, I urge admins to hold before FARCing so someone can address them.
599:
keep it on their watch lists. TimVickers is to be commended for a job well done and a lot of hard work! I'll leave a message asking SamSara if he's satisfied.
712:
I also agree citations are fine. Unless another WikiPhysician appears and says the article isn't comprehensive for any reason, I'll be a Keep on this one.
57:
378:
I'm just doing the menial stuff: your images and refs are great. I was going to see how far you could get before having another look at the prose.
685:
I think that concern has now been addressed, the article now has 65 independent citations, the large majority to peer-reviewed journals.
345:
61:
487:
I still stick to my comment. The sections I requested citations for must have been unearthed somewhere, so should be able to be cited.
17:
632:
I took that word out once, too :-) I'm not necessarily happy, but I'm not necessarily willing to FARC it. More opinions needed.
185:
article with a view to gradually tackling the various bits one by one in manageable chunks. My current project is re-writing the
341:
416:
History can probably be better referenced (was probably originally referenced) from the books now listed in
Further reading.
190:
weekend on call, so please forgive me if I'm a bit tardy. Also trying to organise a job move from
Birmingham to Bangkok. --
703:
619:
243:
95:
348:. These should be merged into one, and then summarized back to the main article, as per guidelines about "notables" at
369:
I've added more refs and a few figures. A lot of copy-editing is still needed. Sandy, you're doing a brilliant job.
213:
concerns should be relatively more easy to fix than the issues with sources. An action plan could look like this:
106:
716:
707:
689:
676:
653:
636:
623:
603:
590:
577:
559:
542:
532:
521:
504:
491:
477:
464:
454:
440:
404:
395:
382:
373:
356:
335:
320:
303:
282:
272:
257:
247:
194:
172:
163:
142:
118:
99:
69:
182:
83:
79:
234:
Sounds like it will take more than a week, with people being busy. Is it worth demoting the article? -
473:
I'd give it six or seven out of ten. Now all it needs is some rewriting for clarity and structure.
186:
650:
574:
488:
451:
158:
713:
699:
633:
615:
600:
539:
518:
461:
437:
422:
The article is poorly wiki-linked, but that work should be deferred until rewrite is finished.
401:
379:
353:
332:
317:
300:
279:
254:
239:
169:
139:
91:
66:
419:
Treatment, prognosis and diagnosis still need basic, referenced, summary rewrites/overviews.
349:
309:
292:
210:
206:
130:
126:
114:
686:
587:
556:
529:
501:
474:
392:
370:
269:
460:
be done, but I haven't been able to entice anyone else over from WikiProject
Medicine.
400:
If you're done for a while, I'll run through it next: don't want to get in your way.
673:
296:
154:
555:
OK, I'll keep an eye on things. Just drop me a note if you need anything else done.
695:
611:
313:
235:
224:
178:
87:
36:
27:
266:
I've made a start at adding more references. However, I only know the <ref: -->
110:
138:
hadn't realized this one was so bad: all of the older ones should be checked.
52:
Promoted during "Brilliant prose" phase, no original author. Messages left at
340:
Another problem is that overlapping daughter articles have been created with
168:
I'm leaving a note (hate to hit a new person with a massive cleanup job :-)
78:
It may also be possible to obtain further sources from sub-articles such as
428:
A physician needs to make sure "other names" and "symptoms" sections jive.
295:, cleaned out the External link farm, fixed some headings to conform with
291:
I've made a stab at reorganizing the sections to more closely conform to
191:
150:
153:, is an infectious diseases specialist. He may be able to assist here.
181:
for the last 3 months and shaking my head in dispair? I rewrote the
431:
I've added inline comments, questions: do a text search on <!
586:
Retrieval dates or PMID added. Need ISBN for Britannical 1911.
308:
The article now has a cleaner structure, better conforming to
278:
more important is for the docs to get the writing done.
229:
Find missing or more reliable references as appropriate.
125:
The article is seriously undercited, doesn't conform to
670:
Suggested FA criteria concern is insufficient citations
413:
Some general notes as I'm sorting through the article:
223:
Mark up unsourced statements and references not within
177:
Ha ha ha you think I haven't already been staring at
135:
highest quality sources specific to the subject area,
327:
134:
528:Is there anything else you need me to do Sandy?
8:
268:format so I hope this isn't too disruptive.
105:First, you could use more images from
391:The article is now fully referenced.
86:, are similarly poorly referenced. -
7:
267:stuff by stuff in thing</ref: -->
220:Make structure conform to guidelines
346:List of famous tuberculosis victims
24:
18:Knowledge:Featured article review
342:Tuberculosis in history and art
1:
717:01:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
708:16:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
690:16:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
677:09:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
654:17:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
637:15:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
624:15:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
604:12:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
591:16:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
578:15:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
560:17:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
543:16:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
533:16:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
522:05:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
610:leave it at this. Regards,
505:21:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
492:21:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
478:21:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
465:21:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
455:18:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
441:20:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
405:19:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
396:19:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
383:05:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
374:05:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
357:17:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
336:17:20, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
328:reliable source guidelines.
321:17:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
304:06:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
283:23:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
273:22:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
258:16:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
248:15:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
195:22:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
173:20:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
164:19:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
143:15:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
119:14:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
100:12:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
70:15:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
739:
694:Yes, I would agree. -
326:should be avoided per
84:Tuberculosis diagnosis
80:Tuberculosis treatment
187:latent tuberculosis
35:Article is still a
133:, doesn't use the
82:. Others, such as
161:
58:Clinical Medicine
44:Review commentary
730:
159:
37:featured article
738:
737:
733:
732:
731:
729:
728:
727:
666:
664:FARC commentary
117:
46:
31:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
736:
734:
726:
725:
724:
723:
722:
721:
720:
719:
680:
679:
665:
662:
661:
660:
659:
658:
657:
656:
642:
641:
640:
639:
627:
626:
596:
595:
594:
593:
581:
580:
567:
566:
565:
564:
563:
562:
548:
547:
546:
545:
525:
524:
510:
509:
508:
507:
495:
494:
481:
480:
470:
469:
468:
467:
435:
434:
433:
432:
429:
426:
423:
420:
417:
410:
409:
408:
407:
388:
387:
386:
385:
366:
365:
364:
363:
362:
361:
360:
359:
288:
287:
286:
285:
263:
262:
261:
260:
232:
231:
230:
227:
221:
215:
214:
202:
201:
200:
199:
198:
197:
146:
145:
122:
121:
113:
75:
74:
73:
72:
45:
42:
41:
40:
30:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
735:
718:
715:
711:
710:
709:
705:
701:
697:
693:
692:
691:
688:
684:
683:
682:
681:
678:
675:
671:
668:
667:
663:
655:
652:
651:LuciferMorgan
648:
647:
646:
645:
644:
643:
638:
635:
631:
630:
629:
628:
625:
621:
617:
613:
608:
607:
606:
605:
602:
592:
589:
585:
584:
583:
582:
579:
576:
575:LuciferMorgan
572:
569:
568:
561:
558:
554:
553:
552:
551:
550:
549:
544:
541:
536:
535:
534:
531:
527:
526:
523:
520:
515:
512:
511:
506:
503:
499:
498:
497:
496:
493:
490:
489:LuciferMorgan
486:
483:
482:
479:
476:
472:
471:
466:
463:
458:
457:
456:
453:
452:LuciferMorgan
448:
445:
444:
443:
442:
439:
430:
427:
424:
421:
418:
415:
414:
412:
411:
406:
403:
399:
398:
397:
394:
390:
389:
384:
381:
377:
376:
375:
372:
368:
367:
358:
355:
351:
347:
343:
339:
338:
337:
334:
329:
324:
323:
322:
319:
315:
314:Summary style
311:
307:
306:
305:
302:
298:
294:
290:
289:
284:
281:
276:
275:
274:
271:
265:
264:
259:
256:
251:
250:
249:
245:
241:
237:
233:
228:
226:
222:
219:
218:
217:
216:
212:
208:
204:
203:
196:
193:
188:
184:
180:
176:
175:
174:
171:
167:
166:
165:
162:
156:
152:
148:
147:
144:
141:
136:
132:
128:
124:
123:
120:
116:
112:
108:
104:
103:
102:
101:
97:
93:
89:
85:
81:
71:
68:
64:
63:
59:
55:
50:
49:
48:
47:
43:
39:
38:
33:
32:
29:
26:
19:
669:
597:
570:
513:
484:
446:
436:
183:TB treatment
179:tuberculosis
149:A new user,
76:
54:Medicine FAR
51:
34:
28:Tuberculosis
687:TimVickers
588:TimVickers
557:TimVickers
530:TimVickers
502:TimVickers
475:TimVickers
393:TimVickers
371:TimVickers
331:explored.
270:TimVickers
350:WP:MEDMOS
310:WP:MEDMOS
293:WP:MEDMOS
211:WP:MEDMOS
207:WP:LAYOUT
131:WP:MEDMOS
127:WP:LAYOUT
704:contribs
674:Marskell
620:contribs
244:contribs
151:User:Gak
96:contribs
62:Medicine
696:Samsara
612:Samsara
571:Comment
538:edits.
485:Comment
447:Comment
236:Samsara
88:Samsara
297:WP:MOS
111:NCurse
60:, and
714:Sandy
634:Sandy
601:Sandy
540:Sandy
519:Sandy
514:FARC?
462:Sandy
438:Sandy
402:Sandy
380:Sandy
354:Sandy
333:Sandy
318:Sandy
301:Sandy
280:Sandy
255:Sandy
225:WP:RS
170:Sandy
140:Sandy
67:Sandy
16:<
700:talk
616:talk
344:and
240:talk
205:The
160:T@lk
115:work
107:here
92:talk
352:.
192:Gak
155:JFW
129:or
706:)
702:•
672:.
622:)
618:•
246:)
242:•
157:|
109:.
98:)
94:•
65:.
56:,
698:(
614:(
238:(
209:/
90:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.