Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Obesity/archive2

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates | Obesity
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:28, 7 November 2009 [1].

Obesity

edit
Nominator(s): Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured article because it exemplifies Wikipedia best work. Has many sub pages which fill in detail for many sections. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Took packages of the two most commonly used obesity meds and took a picture of them with a digital camera. This is not much different than what has been done on the Sertraline article. I would ask the above user to assume good faith. If this is not allowed we have a great number of images on Wikipedia that must be deleted. Let me know what the community thinks.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a copyright problem with that image. However, it'd be much better to take a picture of the actual medication, rather than its packaging, so that the casual user can easily see whether it's a capsule, pill, liquid, etc.; this is useful at-a-glance information that the current photo doesn't convey. Eubulides (talk) 22:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since I wrote the above comment, the image has been improved as suggested; thanks. I don't see a copyright issue with the improved image either. Eubulides (talk) 17:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with User:CactusWriter and User:Stifle below and would refer to Commons:Commons:Image casebook#Product packaging. Packaging labels can be copyrighted to the degree that they incorporate creative elements in design. The Meridia clears the creativity threshold easily. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Add some alt text. Not completely sure if this is what is desired?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a very good start; thanks. Here are the remaining problems I see:
  • File:Obesity-waist circumference.PNG and File:Italienischer Maler des 17. Jahrhunderts 001.jpg are still missing alt text. For the former, please use the |Alt= parameter of {{Infobox Disease}}.
  • The alt text for the maps don't convey to the visually impaired reader any useful info that's not already in the caption. Please reword them to say something useful, e.g., "Obese males have higher prevalence (above 30%) in the U.S. and some Middle Eastern countries, medium prevalence in the rest of North America and Europe, and lower prevalence (<5%) in most of Asia."
Agree
  • Please move the phrase "two most commonly used medication to treat obesity" to the caption, as it does not describe visual appearance and cannot be verified by a non-expert simply by looking at the image; please see WP:ALT#Verifiability. For that image I expect the alt text will just say something like "Cardboard packaging of medications; see caption." as per WP:ALT#Placeholders. (Is there any way that relatively-weak image can be improved, as suggested above?)
Will head down to a pharmacy and take some more pictures.
  • The alt text "A three dimensional model of the leptin molecule" is mostly just a copy of the caption; please rephrase it so that it says what the molecule looks like, rather than repeating the caption, as per WP:ALT#Repetition.
  • I had trouble parsing "Well all the bony structures and organs appear similar the normal weight individual showing little subcutaneous fat and the obese person showing substantially more subcutaneous fat." Perhaps the "Well" should be removed, and a comma or two inserted?
  • Please omit the phrase "The image of the side of" as per WP:ALT#Phrases to avoid.
Eubulides (talk) 01:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All above items have been fixed; thanks for doing all that. Eubulides (talk) 17:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I never normally argue with doctors, but my eyebrows shot up at "During the Baroque the wealthy often were obese" (picture caption). In fact the reference refers to "the Middle Ages and Renaissance", not the Baroque, and is anyway from Francine Kaufman, who appears to be a doctor not a historian. It is a vague & dubious proposition imo, & our age is in no position to point the finger. Riding & hunting tended to keep them relatively trim, with of course some exceptions. The picture is a great one, but the caption needs a different angle - how do we know he did not have a thyroid disorder etc anyway? Otherwise the article seems very good & nearly there. Johnbod (talk) 04:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes thanks the ref does say middle ages and changed it to that. There are a number of other books which make this assertion aswell. They can easily be found through google scholar.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting I add a better reference? The changes you made have made the situation worse if anything. Where did "officials" come from? Johnbod (talk) 15:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Schizophrenia and Alzheimer's disease are of similar lengths.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded new images which I hope are within copyright.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The new images are better from a copyright point of view. I can see where some might still object, but to my eye this particular use of the packaging is de minimus. If it's still a problem, the pictures can be retaken (again!) so as to emphasizes the capsules and deemphasize the boxes (perhaps even eliminated the boxes); this should satisfy even the more-conservative editors. Eubulides (talk) 17:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've read about a quarter of this tonight and have run out of time. Here are my comments so far.

Lead: I found "medical reasons" to be a rather vague get-out-clause that overlaps genetics and psychiatric illness.
Classification: This section contains a lot of detail the reader doesn't need at this point. It has equations. It doesn't just contain "classification" details -- particularly the childhood obesity section, which is a mini-article. I suggest this is either moved far down the article (which raises some problems with the definition of BMI used throughout the article) or greatly slimmed down to just discuss the methods of classifying obesity and move all the non-classification information elsewhere.
Childhood obesity: The sentence "Activities from self propelled transport, to school physical education, and organized sports has been declining in many countries." seems broken.
Childhood obesity: "it is important that" needs to be attributed in the body text or rephrased. We don't give medical advice so need to push that advice into someone else's mouth.
Mortality: "well in the European Union" not sure what this is supposed to have said.
Causes: The disproven "slow metabolism" excuse probably doesn't belong in Diet. Could this be moved up to the lead of this section.
Genetics: You lost me, as a general reader, with "Adults who were homozygous for a particular FTO allele". Scanning at the rest of the page on my screen, I see strange "locus" numbers and tables with stuff like "near D6S1009, GATA184A08, D6S2436, and D6S305". What on earth is the general reader to make of that? Does any of this detail belong in an overview-article on a major health topic that needs to be accessible? Any reader that made it past the equations earlier will have given up now, I'm afraid.
Colin°Talk 21:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Colin for the comments which I by and large agree with. Have made changes to address them except the genetics section that I am still thinking about. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ott
  1. "Excessive body weight is associated with various diseases" why not say that it increases the likelihood of various diseases? Like it says in the morbidity section.
    Done Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The mortality section talks about smokers, doesn't seem that relevant.
    Smoking vs non smoking is very relevant in the literature as those who smoke are lighter yet have increased mortality due to smoking. Therefore if you do not take smoking into account it appears that it is healthy to be overweight ( ie you must compare none smokers to none smokers and smokers to smokers ) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Caloric at the start of Causes section needs wikilinking?
    Done Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. "Agricultural policy and techniques" mention and wikilink to gm crops as an example?
    Linked Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Social determinants section again, is the smoking part really relevant? It even says "Changing rates of smoking however have had little effect on the overall rates of obesity".
    Yes changing rates of smoking have had little effect on the rate of obesity as 1) rate of smoking has changed little
  6. I think the dieting section goes in to too much detail, it should be merged in to one or two paragraphs like the exercise section.
    Done Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. The pedometer line can be written to be more helpful and could probably be added in to the paragraph above it.
    DoneDoc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. City of Bogota is one example on it's own, provide some more?
    Added a review to support bogota's efforts. Will add more examples to the subpage.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Clinical protocols section only gives North America's protocol, what about other countries?
    Added examples from the rest of the English worldDoc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. In other animals section needs expanding.
    Expanded some further expansion should take place on the subpageDoc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Why is Canadian Obesity Network in the external links section?
    No idea therefore removedDoc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. I think more images are needed. For example a graph to show a correlation between morality rate and obesity. And more examples of the effects of being obese, why not use Image:Gynecomastia_001.jpg or Image:Belly Strech Marks.jpg? I'm sure there's plenty more.
    Will put together a graph of obesity vs mortality. The two images you refer to gynecomastia and belly strech are already on the Obesity associated morbidity and I do not think add sufficiently to move to the main page.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Have found some data but having trouble getting it into a graph / chart. http://www.radtechstudy.nci.nih.gov/docs/Freedman_IntJObes_2006.pdf Can anyone help?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Figured it out and done.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. You should merge the sister links together, see Template:Sisterlinks
    Cool done Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Chinese government dab link.
    Not sure exactly what you are refer to? Made a change.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You need to change the Chinese government link to one of the links listed on that dab page. Government of the People's Republic of China would probably be appropriate. Or find a health/china related article.--Otterathome (talk) 19:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay get it now. Done.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Some of the external link sources need updating, see EL checker tool.
    Is there a bot that can fix these redirects?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. I don't like the caption of the wide-chair photo. How about something like 'Service must accommodate obese people with specialist equipment such as much wider chairs."--Otterathome (talk) 19:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    SureDoc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have address all the above concerns?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There still seems to be many very short sections sentences such as in the Diet section.--Otterathome (talk) 15:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose — I am sorry, but the prose is still not up to scratch. I am constantly finding errors that prevent me from continuing to read the article because because I feel a duty to correct them. [2] There is still much redundancy in the article and a lot of what seems to me as padding. When reading the article I find myself continually questioning its reliability. Take this section for example, "An association between viruses and obesity has been found in humans and several different animal species. The amount that these association may have contributed to the rising rate of obesity is yet to be determined", is too vague. And surely we are referring to viral infections and not "associations". Indeed, as a virologist, I would be very interested to know the names of these viruses. The medication section is sloppy and confusing—and I have just noticed another error in the prose, "There are a number of less commonly used medication." I feel very mean in saying this, but this article does not represent our best work as it stands. It requires a thorough copy-edit by an uninvolved editor who is familiar with the subject. We need to lose words that break the readers' confidence in the article like "certain" and "various" and odd metaphors such as "Comprehensive approaches are being looked at". It's a shame, there is a great deal of useful information here, but it's presentation is very poor. Graham Colm Talk 21:49, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes will agree I have never been noted for my grammatical or spelling abilities. Hopefully some one can help out with the remaining errors of prose. With respect however to "words that break the readers' confidence in that article" obesity is a difficulty subject to study with conflicting results and certain tentative conclusion. Greater certainly should not be claimed to exist were it in fact does not. I am glad you find a "great deal of useful information".Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am going through the article revising certain sentences and wording and correcting errors. Please let me know whether you think my 'corrections' in wording are justified and actually produce better results, I know this can be a very subjective issue. Some of the issues I cannot attend to for fear of skewing the meaning, which would be especially disastorous in a medical article.MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk)
Many thanks looks good.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What, in 'Effects on health' > 'Mortality', does this mean: Obesity increases the risk of death in current and former smokers as well as in those who have never smoked. Is it just "Smoking increases the risk of death in everyone". I don't understand. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 09:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was a bit redundant I agree therefore removed. But you are right it just implies that it increases risk of death in everyone.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Will be away for 4 days.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Break

edit
Data originally from the "Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations" however they have removed it and earth trends has the same data.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To determine the reliability of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. This holds true for any site, even one reproducing information from another site. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This info is provided on the site.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave this out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. (Sorry, missed the reply while I was on the road) Ealdgyth - Talk 13:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What source do we usually use for this info?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A plain dictionary is fine, it doesn't have to be online. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 80 (Metabolism alone..) needs to note that it requires registration or a fee.
Anyone know how to do this?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've done this for you, for future reference, you add a format=registration required field in the cite template. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 160 (Department of Health and Ageing...) has the publisher run into the link title, it should be separate, and lacks an access date.
Done Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 222 (Fennoy...) lacks a last access date.
Fixed ref Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are a number of theories that are commented on in the reference and mention in the wiki text "Some attribute the Venus figurines to the tendency to emphasize fertility while others feel they representation "fatness" in the people of the time."Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: I'm not sure what to make of this. I easily found grammatical problems where I looked (I moused over an image and found an error in the alt text, then I start reading from the beginning and found an error in the lead). I found the article confusing in many parts; it never really clarifies when "weight" and "fat" are considered together and apart. The article defines obesity as an over-accumulation of fat, then says it is measured using primarily weight and height. The Management section seems to gloss over the paradox that it is possible (and quite common) to lose weight without losing fat and gain weight without gaining fat. I couldn't reconcile that issue anywhere in the article. Overall, the prose appears unpolished and somewhat unaccessible. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 03:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose
  • Per 1a definitely, and perhaps as per 1c. This article really isn't terrible by any stretch of the imagination. However, I have a feeling that enlisting some good copy editors to spruce it up would work wonders. Moreover, this is an important health topic, and new info comes in all the time (see my link below). I would not feel comfortable Supporting unless I had undertaken a line-by-line fact check... not looking for inaccuracies or mistakes (because I doubt that there are any), but rather looking for omissions... Even if I discount that aspect (as some might argue), it still needs prettying up. Oppose per 1a.
  • I'm seeing a nontrivial sprinkling of punctuation errors. Don't have time to fix them; maybe another day.
  • You have a problem with bunched edit links. I saw at least two instances in your "History and culture" section. You need to do something about this.
  • What's this page number thingie doing in there: [103](pp95,101) [105][106]?
  • See Obesity responsible for 100,000 cancer cases annually.
This information is already at the subpage in percentage form Obesity_associated_morbidity#Oncology Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During Christian times" What time is that?
  • Is "all cause mortality" the appropriate phrase, or a typo? Sounds awkward to me...
  • This sentence looks like a {{fact}} magnet: "Increasing the average body mass index from what is now considered underweight to what is now the normal range played a significant role in the development of industrialized societies." Ditto for nearby generalizations. Are these citable to Caballero?
  • "Obesity is once again a reason for discrimination" Why "once again"? Reference to earlier paragraph? Clarify.
  • More potential {{fact}} magnets just above that sentence.
  • Here's a big problem in my eyes: I see some "paragraphs" that are two sentences long. I dunno where WP:MOS stands on those these days, but I would do something about them.
  • I also see a small amount of... arguably... poor organization. I have encountered a few sentences that look somewhat misplaced. For example, some stuff in the "Historical trends" section seems to be about changing attitudes. When I see the header "Historical trends" I think of increases in prevalence etc. and I expect facts and figures. Perhaps this section should be renamed, or more likely, its contents reshuffled throughout the article? There are also isolated sentences here and there that struck me as being somewhat incongruous with respect to their position in context.
  • Facts regarding the Obesity Policy Action (OPA) framework are kinda decontextualized. Proposed by one group of researchers? Widely accepted? Other important details? Eh, there's a larger problem here: you mention "comprehensive approaches", but list only this one. It's also a dreaded two-sentence pseudo-paragraph. It also includes the awkward "look" metaphor mentioned above by another reviewer.
  • What's all this in "Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine, Volume 1" (p. 467) about a "set point"? Did I overlook that bit of the article?
  • "in 1997 the WHO formally recognized obesity as a global epidemic". That looks like something that should be mentioned in the lede.
  • Speaking of epidemics, I don't remember being struck by info describing the nature and scope of the epidemic, such as "According to data from the 1976–80 and 1988–1994 National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys, the prevalence of overweight (defined as at or above the 85th percentile of body mass index [BMI] in 1976–1980) rose from 25.4% to 34.9% among American adults, from 24.1% to 33.3% among men and from 26.5% to 36.4% among women; nearly doubled among children ages 6–11 years from 7.6% to 13.7%; and rose from 5.7% to 11.5% among adolescents." [http://www.cspinet.org/reports/obesity.pdf Halting the Obesity Epidemic: A Public Health Policy Approach. Again, it is sincerely possible that I overlooked it. I am not being facetious when I say that.
  • Eh, you're probably getting sick of me by now (join the club), but the above observation meshes well with this, again from Harrison's (p. 464): "The recent increase in the prevalence of obesity in the United States is far too rapid to be due to changes in the gene pool." That's a revealing insight/connection.
  • I've been staring at these two sentences for a while, feeling they are awkward & wondering how they should be rewritten: "Public health efforts seek to understand and correct the environmental factors responsible for the increasing prevalence of obesity in the population. Solutions look at changing the factors that cause excess calorie consumption and inhibit physical activity." I give up. They are also uncited; are they common knowledge, or part of a nearby cite? Ling.Nut (talk) 15:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The section "history" should contain more information about how people's attitude toward obesity change through time, such as in 1910s many people in the U.S.A. concern about obesity and overweight, the medical community do not worry much about them; they're highly concerned about thinness, claiming it easily effects physiological diseases. --RekishiEJ (talk) 02:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Obesity/archive2&oldid=1088117991"