Talk:Causes of cancer

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Chglucas.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:44, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Chglucas. Peer reviewers: JH982.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:44, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

WikiMedicine Project Spring 2018 Peer Review

Hello, Wikipedians!

As part of a course elective, I will be providing peer review to user:Chglucas. I will also keep Chglucas's objectives in mind, as listed above in his introduction: “I hope to adjust the language and organization to make the article more accessible to a general audience while maintaining relevant details for students and professionals interested in the topic.”

Overall Impression
This is a very nicely written and organized article! The article started as a C-class, high-importance article. Since the start of contributions by this user, the article has notably improved with reorganization and increased content. It is clear a lot of effort has been made to reorganize the article to improve flow and readability. I personally find this organization, more categories with clear titles, easier to follow. The content additions are also appropriate, clear and cited. For example, the lifestyle section additions to the article were needed and are very informative. The work you have put into this article is excellent – great job!

Notes
As stated in my overall impression, I find the big picture aspects of the article to be well done. Consequently, many of my comments are regarding some smaller, stylistic aspects of the article that may improve readability. As with all things stylistic, please re-read the article with the comments in mind and decide if you agree.

• In the lead, I’m somewhat torn on the list at the end. It’s nicely structured, succinct and informative – overall I like it – however I wonder if that level of detail is needed in the lead. For example, could it just be “the leading modifiable risk factors worldwide are: x,y,z.”
• In the smoking section, the only suggestion I have is to perhaps include a few words clarifying what vaping is or link to a vaping Wikipedia page. Otherwise, the section is very nicely written.

• In the alcohol section, it may be helpful to include links to “DNA methylation” and “oxidative stress” in the last sentence of the paragraph. These may be somewhat esoteric topics and readers could potentially benefit from a link/ability to hover over the link. That said, I can tell you have given a lot of thought to not excessively linking and I agree these links are not absolutely necessary.

• In the diet section, consider linking to the betel nut page (areca nut). Also, a citation at the end of “More than half of the effect from diet is due to overnutrition rather than from eating too little healthy foods,” even if it is just a repeat of an earlier citation, could be nice.

• Citation number 10 (Doll R, Peto R (June 1981). "The causes of cancer: quantitative estimates of avoidable risks of cancer in the United States today". Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 66 (6): 1191–308. doi:10.1093/jnci/66.6.1192) appears to be from 1981. Perhaps a more current citation may be warranted.

• Citation number 43 (Buell P, Dunn JE (May 1965). "Cancer Mortality among Japanese Issei and Nisei of California". Cancer. 18 (5): 656–64. doi:10.1002/1097-0142(196505)18:5<656::AID-CNCR2820180515>3.0.CO;2-3. PMID 14278899) is from 1965. I wonder if this information could be found in a more recent article? However, it is a very specific topic and there may not be.

If any of these comments or suggestions are unclear, please feel free to ask for clarification. Great job! JH982 (talk) 07:39, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for all of the suggestions! I agree with your comment regarding the list in the lead. I have incorporated the information within the lead paragraph. I have also added updated sources for the 1981 reference on modifiable risk factors and the 1965 reference of immigrant cancer risks. I have expanded the e-cigarette section and provided a link to the e-cigarette safety page. I also included hyperlinks for DNA methylation, oxidative stress, and the betel nut. Thank you again for helping to improve this page!Chglucas (talk) 17:26, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Article seems to miss the point that cancer isn't something just "caused by xyz"; Genetics section poor and all others are just lifestyle risks

Even if you don't smoke, have a healthy lifestyle, don't have genetic factors for cancer, don't drink alcohol, don't smoke, did we mention don't smoke, you can still get cancer. This article seems to approach cancer from a reversed perspective, ie exposure to XYZ stuff causes cancer rather than the reality: cancer is a side-effect of natural DNA ageing but made worse by exposure to this XYZ stuff. See the difference?

Your body ages due to natural DNA damage during cell replication, and eventually that will cause damage that turns to cancer. No matter what. Isn't this important!? This is the whole basis to understanding cancer and this article clearly is not written from that perspective - its outdated. Your body has natural cancer fighting systems (ie endocannabanoid system among others) and if they are suppressed say for a medical experiment, you would die of cancerous tumors within weeks. You breathe in mould / dust all the time / particles all the time, although the article thinks background radiation is a more important topic! This article is like reading an 8th grader's report from the 1970's from a research perspective...

This article can tell me absolutely nothing about actual cancer causes, only enhancing risk factors! You can never have someone in perfect health! even if you were to keep someone never expose to any carcinogens would it really help? Oh okay I've never been exposed at all to anything on this list and I don't have any genetic predispositions so I won't get cancer right? WRONG! Well what is my risk of getting cancer in general as a human being in perfect health? Dunno, article doesn't actually explain what causes cancer.

Genetic section only talks about specific syndromes that can cause 3-10% of cancers, NO information on in general why cancer is caused by the body, or how it is really a side-effect of ageing. NEW SECTION: AGE would be a good start for this article.

Listen to the sections -Genetics (not actually about genetics, see above) -Smoking -Lifestyle -Alcohol -Diet -Obesity -Hormones -Infection -Viruses -Bacteria and parasites -Radiation -Non-ionizing radiation -Ionizing radiation -Organ transplantation -Trauma -Maternal-fetal transmission

Someone reading this comes away that cancer is caused by say a bad lifestyle and genetic inheritence when Cancer is more precisely something being continually prevented that would eventually kill you if you were to live long enough -- even in perfect health.Everything on this list is only "what increases risk of you getting cancer, whatever causes it".

In it's current state I read an article about "What increases cancer risk" .63.146.82.250 (talk) 10:27, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Life science

Causes of cancer 41.13.182.151 (talk) 17:41, 27 October 2022 (UTC)