Wikipedia:Peer review/Lyme disease/archive1

Lyme disease

Long and well-referenced article, maybe it could be featured one day. I'd like to get some feedback to know which sections to work on. NCurse _work 08:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From SG

Territory I know: I'll spend some serious time in there, NCurse. Organization looks good per WP:MEDMOS, and Table of Contents initially reassures me that you've likely covered the controversy from all sides, and sources used look good. On first glance, I don't like the listiness of symptoms: listiness so early in an article can be off-putting, but that could be just my personal style. I'll spend detailed time in the article, and be back :-) Sandy 17:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Back with detail:

The article is quite long: Controversy is worthy of its own article, and is the best candidate for Summary style. In fact, I strongly suggest you move Controversy to its own article, with a very careful summary back to the main article, as it's a POV magnet, which could result in deterioration of your article over time.

Should I move the whole section and just leave the first paragraph? Anyway you're absolutely right! NCurse _work 18:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, not just the first paragraph: I suggest very careful attention to how to best summarize the contoversy in a way that will attract less POV, speculative editing, and long-term deterioration of the article, while still covering the controversy. I had a similar problem with the summary of Notable cases into Sociological and cultural aspects of Tourette syndrome, and the balance *seems* to have helped minimize the speculative edits which occurred at a high rate. Aim to make it say enough that it is comprehensive, and all sides will be satisfied so they won't vandalize your article :-) 18:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Further reading needed, there are some good books on Lyme.
External links - remember that Wiki should not attempt to be a "support group" - have a look at how we addressed the problem at Tourette syndrome by linking to DMOZ. There must be a DMOZ category for Lyme disease associations, so that you don't have to link to all of them. Since Lyme is so controversial, many of those organizations have a POV, and I'd rather not see Wiki become a repository of various viewpoints - let DMOZ do that.

I can't find a good DMOZ category for you. Sandy 18:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you follow WP:MEDMOS more closely, or is that not possible?
History, Epidemiology, a large patch in Ecology, and several other areas are completely unreferenced. I find a number of random sentences throughout the article which need cites, considering the controversy (example, "For early cases, prompt treatment is usually curative." All too often, this is not true.) The article may appear overcited, but moving Controversy to its own article will leave a much more manageably sized article, revealing that more inline citations are needed.
The long strings of citations which occur in numerous places suggest that the author is not necessarily citing the most seminal research on the topic. It concerns me. It should take one or at most in extreme case four cites to cover the seminal research, and the concern with a long string of cites is that the "good" research hasn't been sorted out from the "bad". If extremely long citations are needed, can you summarize the issues and cites into one ref tag, which explains why they are all needed? (See how this technique was used effectively in the recently-promoted Daniel Boone.)
Mixed referencing styles (see Transmission by ticks).

Done. NCurse _work 18:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are some external jumps in Prevention which should be converted to proper citations.

Done. NCurse _work 18:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's my initial look: I haven't even read the content yet. Sandy 18:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[edit conflict] - Back with some content-specific questions: I may be wrong on some of these:

Lyme is the larger town, but was the main original epidemic not in Old Lyme?

The main original epidemic was in Old Lyme ([1]). NCurse _work 19:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since the article relies (or should, since Lyme doesn't always travel alone, and that is a big treatment complication) on Tick-borne disease, I'm wondering if the list there is thorough? It doesn't appear to be.
What is in the lead so far looks good, but it should be expanded to three or four paragraphs to thoroughly summarize the article.
Problematic prose, and needs to be cited: "The longer the duration of tick attachment, the greater the risk of disease transmission, but, typically, for the spirochete to be transferred, the tick must be attached for a minimum of 12 hours, although, only the first part of this statement can be said to be strictly correct. (see Proper Removal of Ticks)."
Stubby section: Congenital Lyme disease. If it's worthy of its own section, it should be expanded; if not, merged to another section.
Microbiology is another good candidate for Summary style.
Yikes. Numerous studies have demonstrated persistence of infection despite antibiotic therapy.[28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36] We know this is true: can seminal research be cited, or this combined into one ref tag discussing why all citations are needed, and covering the various seminal conclusions from each?

I stopped there: hope this gives you some ideas at least. Sandy 18:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From Opabinia

A lot of my concerns have already been covered by Sandy, especially regarding the uneven referencing. (You could check out photon for a solution to the many-cites-for-one-fact problem that puts all the citaions under a single footnote, which is less distracting - I didn't read the cited papers specifically, but on points that misunderstood by the public, I can see the utility of referencing multiple studies even if they come to the same conclusion.)

If the evidence for sexual transmission is only "anecdotal and largely unconfirmed", then it's not really evidence. This definitely needs a citation, but I'm not sure it needs to be mentioned at all.
These sound like interesting bacteria; splitting and summarizing the microbiology section could make this more accessible to the general reader.
Some of the "supplemental" treatments sound very suspicious to me. The effects of melittin were apparently shown only in vitro; the text implies that these results have been dismissed or not pursued as a potential treatment, but instinctively, an active component of bee venom doesn't sound to me like a promising treatment candidate. The vitamin C stuff is even worse, since there are already so many urban myths about all the marvelous things vitamin C can do - the statement about it here is uncited and sounds very biochemically unlikely. How exactly is ascorbate supposed to kill bacteria (and viruses, cancer cells, parasites....)?
The large table under standards of care is another good candidate for splitting and summarizing - possibly into Sandy's proposed controvery article. The whole section is likely to be a POV magnet and will fill up with pseudoscientific nonsense if it isn't watched, which is easier if most of the controversial stuff is sequestered in its own article. There's already some POV stuff floating around, eg "When taking it off the market, the manufacturer cited poor sales, though some people believe that the actual reason was that the vaccine was not safe or effective at all." (there's one cite, but is it to the manufacturer's claim or the "some people"? do they have any reason to believe that or is it just the usual nonsense?)
The "proper removal of ticks" section is a) uncited, and b) giving medical advice. It should be rewritten as a neutral report of the recommended technique, not as a tick-removal tutorial.

Opabinia regalis 23:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]