Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Google Project

Start

Should this User talk:TimVickers/Health translation project be linked on this page as well? Remember (talk) 14:34, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I copied the contents we need, I guess That we should ask User:TimVickers to delete that page MaenK.A._Talk 17:34, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I just redirected it, that won't break any of the incoming links. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

That is great, thank you :-) MaenK.A._Talk 19:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Process

How can we best be of service? Should we focus upon the lowest-rated of these, or those closest to readiness? --Arcadian (talk) 20:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The best bag-per-buck will probably be in the lowest-rated articles, since a little effort there will yield large improvements in quality. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

External editors

It would be nice if the external editors would sign up here. Also the short list needs updating as some of these pages have been reviewed. We should have a central area were we can provide feedback to the reviewers. Well most of the comments are excellent a few are recommendations that do not comply with wiki policy.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Google collaboration

So are the people working with google to provide advice on topics going to get involved in editing? I realize that there are many things wrong with many article but we have so few dedicated editors and so much topic area to cover. What we need is more people with a mind for research interested in editing health topics on Wikipedia. I am trying to get some of my students and colleges interested in editing but everyone is always so busy.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:35, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's some of my thoughts: (1) we shouldn't initiate new translations of articles that are "B" or lower. (2) as much as possible, we ought to make use of existing review infrastructure. (3) Getting each of these articles to GA is achievable, measurable, and quantizable. (4) At Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Editorial review article list, there are currently 15 "B" articles listed as "B" for "Status as of April 2010". We ought to add a new column for May 2010. I've nominated Dracunculiasis (currently a "B") as a good article, and cleaned it up to the point where I think it could pass. I recommend that each editor who would like to work on this project "adopt" one of these articles. --Arcadian (talk) 14:35, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I think this is sound since your example of the Dracunculiasis article which I found well written and needed just updating some facts and additional information about symptoms. BSWSJR (talk) 05:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Which articles have already been reviewed? I will probably translate Huntington's disease once it receives its review to Spanish. Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 16:06, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that taking these articles to GA is what we should do. I will work on a couple.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:06, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The CF review was very timely as it just failed GAN, so hopefully extra info gets it on its way. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes and I think all these reviews should occur at that point in the editor process of an article.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Pages being chosen and process

The google editors have been going through Wikipedia article. On the Erectile dysfunction page User:Fact Check AMEF has added a lot of tags. They are all appropriate I agree but without an active editor willing to work on implementing these changes I am not convinced they add anything. Most medical pages deserve this many tags.

I think the best use of the google editors is too have users nominate pages when they are ready to have them reviewed. Thus someone will be there to implement the recommendation also that user is at a point were they wish a thorough review.

When the article on Strep throat was reviewed I was not yet done rewriting it. A review now would be better than when it was done.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Another suggestion would be to have them work with some of the students who edit Wikipedia as a class project. Currently we have student working on the page Allergy and Food allergy. Well the regular medical editors do not need much guidance on improving article the student might benefit most from googles help.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I've seen edits in Cerebral arteriovenous malformation, Hemorrhoid, Streptococcal pharyngitis, Sleep apnea, Erectile dysfunction, Filariasis, Vaccination schedule.I updated the table of articles under review.--Nutriveg (talk) 13:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

In the ED article the reviewer has suggested alternative references on the talkpage for all the tags they added, so having the tags is useful in that it makes clear where the alternative sources need to be added. It does look a bit unsightly at the moment, but hopefully it won't last for long. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Ratings

Not all of these articles are properly within the scope of WPMED (e.g., anatomy), but for those that fall squarely in the middle of our 'diseases and treatments' scope, does anyone object to declaring most of them to be "High" priority? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Um..sounds okay - syphilis and CF got a good going-over just now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes I think most of these are at least high priority.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree Hypovitaminosis D, Leishmaniasis, Obstetric fistula and other are hardly high priority, they just reflect Google.org agenda of focusing in specific undeveloped countries, mainly in Africa.--Nutriveg (talk) 11:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

These subjects are (apparently) the most important medical subjects for the majority of people in the world. Is there a particular reason that you believe that these articles should not be considered fairly important to this project? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I pointed with examples of problems that afflict only a minority of the world's population. It's sad for them but the majority doesn't care about those issues. It may be Google.org agenda to take care of those minorities but most people have more important urges.--Nutriveg (talk) 20:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you think "urges" have to do with it, but perhaps you were unaware that two to three million women have obstetric fistulas. Do you think that these millions of women, and their families, are less important than, say Ancient Greek medicine, equally rare diseases like Autosomal dominant polycystic kidney, minor and self-limiting conditions like Chapped lips, trivial anatomical signs like Café au lait spot, and the like -- all of which are currently rated as high -- simply because this is common only in countries with poor medical infrastructure? It sounds to me like your objection is based on WP:IDONTKNOWIT, or a systemic bias against conditions that are rare in your own community, no matter how much they affect others' communities. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree it would be a little like saying obesity is not important as it does not affect Central Africa. It do not think these are of top importance but have no problems with them being of high importance.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I changed my mind, although the number of countries is low the number of afflicted people is not. I wasn't responsible for grading those other articles you mentioned.--Nutriveg (talk) 22:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Support promotion. --Arcadian (talk) 13:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Ongoing feedback

Are these editors just doing a review at a single point in time? While they be getting involved in a discussion of their suggestion? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I've advised them to check back on their reviews, after a few days to see if anybody has any questions. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

How are you communicating with them, Tim? For the sake of transparency these communications should be easily viewable by all Wikipedia editors and readers (IMHO). If there is some reason for overriding transparency, please explain. Thanks,Postpostmod (talk) 11:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Issues with reviews

I have a number of concerns. The reviewers are tagging stuff as dead links that are not. I am not sure why this is happening. I removed some tags here on the asthma page [1] Than earlier in the asthma article a meta analysis was tagged with non primary source needed tag? A meta analysis is a secondary source...

Now I am completely aware that much of the medical content of Wikipedia needs extensive work. The problem is not a lack of tags the problem is a lack of editors making meaningfully improve to these pages. I personally think we should hold off on further reviews. And that reviews should only proceed when someone is available to use the feedback given and is in need of feedback. Finally the reviewers need to become more involved in Wikipedia than just a one off review based on a shaky understanding of Wiki policies and procedures.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

For that one, the reviewer might simply have applied that tag on finding a null-valued |url= in {{cite journal}}. LeadSongDog come howl 03:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Other issues have occurred here with IBS Talk:Irritable_bowel_syndrome#SarMarTay_Suggestions_5-5-10_.28Citations_93-115.29Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Cervical cancer

I don't know how this process is supposed to work but there are currently some disputed edits in Cervical Cancer, specially between Zodon and the reviewer.--Nutriveg (talk) 19:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your note; this page is a good place to get help. There's no dispute, and User:Zodon hasn't edited anything for several weeks. I've archived the old discussions to reduce the potential for confusion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I missed the years. Never mind about it. Looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Editorial review article list I thought that page was already reviewed and that (now archived) discussion was about that (missed the years) but it doesn't look to me now it was reviewed, instead it seems it was incorrectly marked. --Nutriveg (talk) 19:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

There are two brief comments from a reviewer here. I don't know whether that's all that the article really needs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

First external review

Hello fellow project participants,

I am an externally contracted editor and I have just finished my first review for this stage (Chagas disease). I appreciate the concern of the experienced writers and editors and hope they can provide feedback so that the reviews are as useful and constructive as possible. I would welcome any comments or suggestions on the Chagas review. You can find my contribution on the talk page. Very few edits/tags were made directly to the article.

BSW-RMH (talk) 04:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC)BSW-RMH

Welcome, and thank you! WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome! BSW-RMH (talk) 05:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

External review of Hypertension is finished. Questions or comments? BSW-RMH (talk) 05:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

First of all thanks a lot for your willingness to collaborate, and receive other editors imputs... I have not followed your editions on hypertension and I am not a medical expert (I am a psychologist), however I have been reading your comments there and they seem really sensible. Aditionally another strong point for your work, as opposed to other reviews inside the google project, has been that when changes were not very hard to do you directly made them in the article instead of pointing them out... This article can easily become a good article if some work is made in it. Well done.--Garrondo (talk) 07:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for checking the review! I didn't make many direct edits to the Chagas article because it required so much fact checking and technical input, which took most of the available time. That article also appears to have several active writers/editors participating on the talk page that would be available to apply the recommendations if they find them helpful. I tried a different strategy with the Hypertension review (making more direct edits), because there appeared to be fewer active participants. I agree that it made for a more useful review. Also, this direct-edit-of-small-issues approach didn't seem to change the amount of time it took for the review process. It may be that external reviewers will need to tailor the approach for each article depending on the activity of the community and the level of technical input that is required for the review process. These are just a few thoughts at this stage of the process. BSW-RMH (talk) 16:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

AS there are so many articles under the medicine project scope the hypertension situation (where different people watch the article but few or none are actually active editors) is much more common than the case where there are many active editors for an article. I find much more useful in general the approoach you have choosen here, since at least the small changes have already been done and only the hardest ones appear in the talk page. This seems logical since on the other hand this kind of small changes take almost the same time to name them than to fix them. Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 16:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Infobox for hypertension

I have done a few edits after the review in the hypertension article (mainly in the history section). Additionally I have noticed that the article does not have an infobox. Could anybody create it? (I do not really know how to do it). Thanks in advance.--Garrondo (talk) 18:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I added the infobox back, but one of the reviewers was the person who originally removed it so maybe they don't think it belongs. Remember (talk) 19:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

That infobox was moved during my edit-so I'll can explain my thinking on it. To me it was redudant (already an image of a blood pressure meter in the article later on) and contained both broken, redundant, or too technical links. The edit I did was to move the infobox in question to replace the second image (deleted-older style blood pressure meter) in the more appropriate spot, and the links were just deleted. You'll see that the image in the infobox now appears twice in the article after being restored. If you want to keep the original infobox, you will need to delete the duplicate image. BSW-RMH (talk) 22:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Have done so. We try to keep some consistent formating between article per WP:MEDMOS. Only the ICD nine code is broken. Will fix it soon. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks great now. Good job! Thanks for making sure the article is style-compliant. BSW-RMH (talk) 02:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Readers who use screen readers have requested that infoboxes and other templates be placed in a predictable order at the top of articles. The order is named at WP:Accessibility. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

List of Completed External Reviews (BSW-RMH)

Comments, questions, and recommedations welcomed:

• Chagas disease
• Hypertension
• Compliance (medicine)
• Hepatitis B
• Huntington's disease
• 2009 flu pandemic
• Heartburn
• Hypovitaminosis D
• Sexual intercourse

BSW-RMH (talk) 04:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I like your reviews: concrete, specific, actionable, and friendly.

It looks like nobody's home at Compliance (medicine), but the other articles have one or two editors working on the suggestions you've made. We need a system for signalling when a review is being ignored, is stuck, and is finished. I've added a column to the table that might make convenient place for such notes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Signature hint for new editors

Some talk pages are automatically archived by bots. The bot does this by looking at the very last words in each section, in the hope of finding a timestamp. If it finds an old message, it cuts it off the normal talk page, and pastes it into an archive.

One quirk of this system is that the bots need editors to sign their talkpage comments at the end of every ==Major section== on the talk page, rather than at the beginning. If you put your signature/timestamp at the start (thinking, quite reasonably, to indicate "The following message is from me"), then the bot will be unable to find the timestamp, and the comment may hang out for years before anyone happens to notice the problem.

This is all easily fixed if someone notices, but if you happen to think of it, please sign each comment at the end. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Warning: Ref numbers change

As a note to new editors: The footnote numbers aren't stable in articles; they're automatically re-numbered every time someone adds, removes, or moves a ref. Consequently, if you refer to "Ref 32" in your comments, editors may not be able to find it. We can usually figure it out in the end by pulling the old versions out of the history, but it's quicker for us, and probably safer in the end, if you find a different way to refer to footnotes (e.g., "Ref 32 (Smith)", but it can be anything that's handy and likely to be unique). WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Heartburn

• Heartburn-anyone that can- please weigh in on the talk page concerning this article, re. 'heartburn' meaning just a symptom or a symptom/condition/disease/syndrome, revisions will require a the community consensus on this issue.

BSW-RMH (talk) 15:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

So what now?

Most of the reviews have been performed already and only one reviewer is interacting with the wikipedia community and watching articles to see changes and give additional imput. From my point of view the reviews of this reviewer are the most (maybe the only ones) useful. In addition as pointed above there have been some misunderstandings among the reviewers on the preferred sources in wikipedia, which of course since there has been zero interaction with them have not been clarified... Nevertheless we have to look foward. What is going to occur now? Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 19:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes I agree that BSW-RMH interactions have been good. With respect to the editing of Strep throat the review occurred half way through my editing binge and was not updated once I was finished. From my point of view I could use a review of Obesity as I am unsure how to improve it further.

--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I've also been impressed with BSW-RMH's work. I think that what we mostly do right now is to figure out which reviews are being completely neglected and see whether we can round up some editors to work on those. I looked at the first 20 the other day on an archiving run, and while about half were well underway (and congrats to DO11.10 for being the first to completely finish!), there were several that appeared to have zero active editors on the page. If we're waiting for clarification on one page, we can at least try to do the easy stuff on a neglected page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I also think they are using poor sources, easily accessible but poor.--Nutriveg (talk) 22:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Use of sources

How to deal with WP:MEDRS and these articles? Reviewers are using lay sources (informational web sites) instead of books and formal statements that can be further checked.--Nutriveg (talk) 19:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I want to state that sources like this http://www.cancer.org/downloads/STT/500809web.pdf which collates information covering over 90% of the U.S. population is preferable to a source that you suggested that quotes data from 1998. I wish that I can use tools like Uptodate or the Cochrane library (which many articles that are linked are not available by our institutional subscription), but even working in the largest medical center in the world does not provide me with these resources. BSWSJR (talk) 17:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes I have seen the same such as here [2]. I have left them notes but have not received acknowledgment.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I've had this conversation with DocJames in the course of one review. I like to use Mayo Clinic and WebMD as a nice overview of the consensus on a particular topic, and back them up with secondary sources like review articles for the sake of the convenience of both myself and the person that is going to be making changes to the article based on the review. The Wikipedia:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles) guide supports the use of WebMD in this way, "Peer-reviewed medical information resources such as WebMD and UpToDate can be useful guides about the relevant medical literature and how much weight to give different sources; however, as much as possible Wikipedia articles should cite the literature directly." Note also, that you can access the references to primary and secondary sources on which the Mayo clinic information in a particular section is based at the bottom of every page by clicking on references, which is why I prefer it to WebMD. BSW-RMH (talk) 20:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, MedlinePlus is produced by the NIH which is listed as a reliable encyclopedic source under Medical and scientific organizations in theWikipedia:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles) guide. It also has primary/secondary references at the bottom of the page that you can use to do more fact checking. We are trying to complete each review within a very short time frame and reading all the primary/secondary literature and making long reference lists is very time consuming, so we've been advised to focus more on making sure the articles are accurate, complete, and high quality. Of course we try to do both, but sometimes we have to go with these alternative encyclopedic sources for the general information to save time :) BSW-RMH (talk) 20:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

What source is "best" depends on how it's being used, but I think that anyone who is worried should keep in mind that these reviewers are providing suggestions, not edicts from on high. If you think that a suggested source isn't the best option, then please (find and read and) use a better one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree completely with above: These sources will not take an article to FA since most times only cover the most agreed an high important aspects of a disease (which on the other hand are also the ones which need less reference). This is also their strengh since you can get an overview of a disease so they can be very useful to make huge improvements in short time to an article and probably take an article to B-high standard... And as already said anybody who wants can go still further and search for even better sources now or in the future, but for me at least is much easier to further improve an article departing from these sources than from none. Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 22:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Well MedlinePlus and WebMD may be okay sources I do not use them as I am more interested in what the literature / evidence-base actually says. Also when a high quality review contradicts the previous two we must go with the high quality review.

As Garrondo says these sources will not take an article to FA. As FA is were we should be going these are not preferred sources. Well we are writing for the general public what we write should also be useful for professionals. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I would like to point out that many of these reviews, for example those found through the Cochrane library, are not free of charge. If I cannot personally read them I will not use them. BSWSJR (talk) 05:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Perfectly correct. Fortunately we have a wide variety of editors with a wide variety of resources upon which to draw. LeadSongDog come howl! 05:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes I guess Americans do not get free access to Cochrane like we do up north.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Sources like WebMD and MedlinePlus are good for citing general statements and they are also good for our readers, since they let people verify statements for themselves. One thing I wouldn't use them for is making statements about particular pieces of research - but citing primary sources and individual studies is something we are better off avoiding in overview articles such as these. As WhatamIdoing said, if you think the suggested source isn't the best one, use another - or cite two sources, with one overview website and one original review/meta-analysis. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

When reviewers are unable to check the source themselves, it would be helpful to apply template:verify source (or just vs for short). When another editor can verify it, they remove that tag and their removal stands in the article history as having made the verification. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for this information. I will try to use the vs tag to accommodate more review sources from the published literature. BSWSJR (talk) 17:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Many times we have to find balance in a trade-off between quantity and quality of editions...

<philosophical> Is it better to improve a C article to FA or 10 C articles to (real)B articles?, Maybe if we aim to give high quality contents to the greatest number of people (which is indeed the aim of the google project) we may prefer the latter. Maybe it is not As FA is were we should be going these are not preferred sources but just the opposite: that these sources are an intermediate way point in the way to FA, facilitating that these articles get to FA in a near future... </philosophical> (at least they would much ease the proccess of improving such articles for me)

Since (I think) we all agree that altough not perfect, these sources have clear advantages (and of course drawbacks) nobody should be critizized for using or recommending their use for specific sentences or sections in an article. We are actually following MEDMOS word by word. Other thing is that (as it has actually occurred) and editor or reviewer recommends them as preferable over high quality peer-reviewed sources, which is clearly against MEDMOS.--Garrondo (talk) 22:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

We must also take into account the preferences of the people who are editing the article. If they will not use the review as this is not how they edit it adds little.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

No doubts on that, but that can not be critizized. Of course in a personal basis one could for example ask a reviewer (if they interacted, which they don't) to expend their time after giving their overbroad opinion in an article concentrating in a given section and higher quality sources, or simply to go to other articles because their help would not be useful. It has been said here that they only had to spend 2 hours per article, which is clearly little time. For the future maybe some more dedication to a few less articles may be more useful, but if that time is what they have these references are again very good.--Garrondo (talk) 07:16, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, BSWSJR and BSW-RMH are involved in the conversations on this page, so I think that at least some of them are interacting (very well) with the community. That issue could go on someone's 'lessons learned' list: Wikipedia editors expect to be able to talk to you at length, about just about everything, and we get grumpy if you don't participate in discussions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Two thoughts:

• If you can't get a copy of a source that you think would be good, feel free to ask. Usually, we can find somebody who has access. For example, I believe that Doc James was saying the other week that he can occasionally arrange a free trial subscription to UpToDate.
• I really appreciate people who don't cite sources that they haven't read. I realize that's a pretty basic thing for professionals, but we do sometimes encounter inexperienced people who are citing papers based on just the title or the abstract, and it often leads to problems. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:20, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

That is correct Uptodate allow me to give a one time one month access to anyone. If people wish access just drop me a note including their email address. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Benefits of sexual intercourse

Hey, all. I would like more thoughts on the Benefits section of the Sexual intercourse article. BSW-RMH, who seems like a great editor, left suggestions for improving the article, and removed most of the information from the Benefits section. He (I assume BSW-RMH is a "he") cited the sources as unreliable, but as stated above, sources such as WebMD are reliable. This is what the Benefits section looked like before. It seems really odd to have removed the studies on how sexual intercourse may increase health. We're talking about studies from the Journal of the American Medical Association, and more. Is it more so that WebMD was used as the only source for most of these reports, and I should rather try to find the primary sources for this information?

As for the Risks section, the sources seem okay to use regarding its reported information as well, though I agreed that it would be better to use the sources suggested by BSW-RMH. Flyer22 (talk) 16:32, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I can not add much to this point and even less since it is 2 AM and I have drink a few beers... :-) I only wanted to say that BSW-RMH is a woman, for what you can extract from her user page. Good night to every body.--Garrondo (talk) 00:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Oops. I'll apologize to BSW-RMH about that below. Thanks. I should have checked. Flyer22 (talk) 20:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Flyer,

I want to first say thanks for your work on this article. I'm mostly going to disagree on this specific issue, however:

The style of the previous version had some problems (IMO). I don't usually like to see descriptions of uncontrolled surveys and primary studies, or soundbite-style direct quotations from non-notable people. WP:MEDMOS#Writing style (fourth and fifth bullets, in particular) might help you understand what I didn't like about it.

As for the content, some of the sources were kind of weak ("10 Surprising Health Benefits of Sex" is not exactly a scholarly source). Importantly (to me; others might disagree), most of the supposed benefits they claimed were supported by weak evidence: self-reports, artificial experiments (e.g., the effects of a hug in a lab is extrapolated to sexual intercourse), and correlations without any evidence to support causation. Overall, it felt like a laundry list of every possible benefit for which a science-y sounding source could be found to support it, rather than documentation of any well-established benefits.

Additionally, by filling a lot of space with "benefits" that are barely past the speculation stage, I think that it misrepresented the state of knowledge to readers, by making it seem that the (currently known) medical benefits were approximately the same "size" as the well-established medical risks. The current version might be a bit on the brief side, but I think it is a net improvement. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I removed the 'benefits' that were unverifiable, ie. I could not verify with searches for peer-reviewed primary or secondary articles on the subject in Pubmed (and Google Scholar as a back up-because sometimes it can pick up things PubMed misses-even with trying various permutations of search keywords in PubMed). So anything removed 'only' had only the one source-which was an article with lots of personal opinions and had no listed references. I did remove them indivudally so they can be added back if someone finds a reliable reference for any of them. BSW-RMH (talk) 14:36, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I thank you all for the feedback. WhatamIdoing, especially thanks for the tips about MOS style regarding this type of information. Regarding the content, though, are you and BSW-RMH saying that the information on the studies should be added back if I can find the primary, or simply better, sources for them, or are you saying that information should stay out either way because these are not well-established benefits? And is WebMD a generally accepted source for medical topics here at Wikipedia but also one that should be used sparingly for reporting on a single topic...unless backed up by better references?

And, BSW-RMH, I apologize for referring to you as a "he." I should have known to check your user page, especially since the same thing happens to me all the time. Flyer22 (talk) 20:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I read all of your user page (not talk page), and I don't see anything about being male or female (unless I misread), but I am glad that we have such a great editor working on medical topics here. Thanks again. Flyer22 (talk) 20:23, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that describing "benefits" for which the evidence is weak or tangential, and the sources all primary (in the classic academic definition, not the muddled Wikipedia notion), is WP:UNDUE. If high-quality secondary sources supported a given connection, then I'd certainly reconsider.

One reason for my caution is the difficulty in getting from correlation to causation: People who are physically and mentally healthy have more sex than people who are currently sick or disabled, but that does not mean that having sex makes them healthy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, WhatamIdoing. I appreciate the advice. If I add anything back, it will be in thought of what you stated above, and would not be a lot. Flyer22 (talk) 20:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

"Insanity is hereditary, you get it from your kids." But seriously, causality is often tough to demonstrate. The sick and the healthy alike result from the fact that their parents engaged in the act. Demonstrably, the act causes all sickness and all health in the resultant children. Now in the article on sexual reproduction there should be no difficulty reliably sourcing statements that the benefits include increased genetic diversity, higher species survivability under arising threats, and faster pace of evolution compared to asexual reproduction (parthenogenesis). LeadSongDog come howl! 21:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Good points, LeadSongDog. And thanks for the laugh at the beginning of your statement; I needed that today. Flyer22 (talk) 17:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

need a link?

Took me a little time to find my way back here to check how things were going - shouldn't we have a link somewhere on the medicine project, maybe under related projects or even taskforces? Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 13:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes good idea a feel free to add. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

User:scottalter has added it to the 'how you can help' section on the project page and in the navigation pane for us. Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 13:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: Message from Google.org

It is good to know our assessment process holds up and it was productive working with the reviewers. As doc James has said - we haven't addressed all the points made by the reviews yet - but once they are written down they will get used eventually ... It was refreshing to have an interactive analysis - usually research just looks at the articles, compares them, or say there are flaws without fixing easy to correct errors as they go, or pointing out more complex ones on the talk page!

As to the articles more commonly searched from other ountries - it might be worth checking the quality of these on their localized wikis - as they might be better developed to start with and really need translating to en wiki! Many thanks.. Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 12:01, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

My reading of the update on the project (specifically the tweak portion) was that we are switching to B or better articles; consequently, if we were working on C or less articles then we should switch. Is this the right interpretation? Kallimachus (talk) 18:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any particular article in mind? It might be worth re-assessing it. (I've taken a break from most assessment work recently, because the change in interface broke the handy script I've been using. But if you can't figure out the fairly straightforward criteria, I'm happy to take individual requests (here, on my user talk page, at the end of WP:MEDA). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Not in particular, mainly the ones I've signed up for so far have been C (with the idea that I would work on them to improve them). I've been doing other bits and pieces of late so I figured targeting efforts to articles we're focusing on would be best. Kallimachus (talk) 20:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello everyone! I have a list of articles that I am reviewing for this new phase of the project. They are as follows: Ashwagandha, Boil, Constipation, Vitiligo, Triphala, Vitamin E, Asthma, Depression, Dizziness, Asana, Ayurveda, and Tonsilitis. Google has chosen these as highest priority at the moment. I'l let you know if I hear of any more to add to the list. Some of these articles are start class and could use some expanding to make them more comprehensive. When the initial reviews are complete, I will be able to go back and participate in discussion and/or make direct edits if there are no objections (as time permits). Hopefully I will have time to go back to the original set and weigh in there as well. You all have done so much work! I'm glad to be back on the project with you. BSW-RMH (talk) 03:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes feel free to edit! We are a little short of people power and need to figure out how to attract more high quality editors. BTW I did a bunch of work on Streptococcal pharyngitis which sort of overlaps with tonsillitis.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Will do. I did the original reviews without direct edits to see if there were any comments or objections to the proposed changes. I'll be circling back this week to implement some of the basic proposed changes (like added citations and expansions). The Tonsillitis articles would definitely benefit from mention of the Streptococcal pharyngitis article because of the overlap. I'll make sure to put that in there. BSW-RMH (talk) 01:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Most recent articles reviewed for WPMed/Google project

Here is a list of the most recently completed reviews for the project. If anyone had a chance to look them over and comments, please do. I will circle back this week to go through them again.

• Ashwaganda
• Boil
• Constipation
• Vitiligo
• Dizziness
• Tonsillitis
• Asana
• Depression (mood)
• Vitamin E BSW-RMH (talk) 03:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
• Triphala BSW-RMH (talk) 03:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
• Ayurveda BSW-RMH (talk) 02:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
• Asthma BSW-RMH (talk) 04:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

And yes, I know some of them are not WPMed, but these were identified as priorities by Google. Maybe I should post that the reviews have been done in the appropriate WP areas if they are not WPMed (eg. WPYoga). But all comments are welcome!

BSW-RMH (talk) 16:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

My, you have been busy! We may need a bit of organizing to get a more rapid response to your reviews! Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 10:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

And August isn't the best time to be recruiting editors, because so many people are on vacation. IMO one lesson from the Google Project is that our experienced editors have a finite capacity for improving articles: we can handle 20 in a month, but not 200. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Summer does seem to be a bit slow editing-wise. Well, there will only be a total of twelve in this section so I am almost done and then will go back and try to help implement some suggestions. I am worried about doing too much direct editing without other editors weighing in though. Any thoughts on that? BSW-RMH (talk) 02:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

There is normally a slight lull whilst everyone is whizzing about on holidays. There's more tourists than ever in Cornwall than we've seen before! I think your judgement and quality of edits is fine, nothing to worry about there. Hopefully will get some time to help out soon - just catching up with a number of other missions! Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 12:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Request for help

Hello everyone. I've reviewed 12 articles (see previous section) and implemented almost all the suggestions from these reviews by direct editing. However I need your help with 3 of them in order of priority:

• Asthma towards the end needs more citations and reduction of technical medical jargon to more common terms.
• Depression(mood) could use more direct edits, but there is discussion on the talk page of whether the aticle should even exist. Some seem to think that major depressive disorder is synonymous with depression (at least in this context), and MDD already has an article. I am also not sure what it is meant to cover (only non-disorder depression, or all forms of depression including disorders). There's no editor consensus on that. Could anyone with an opinion please weigh in?
• Dizziness needs serious expansion. Contributions welcome!

Thanks so much! BSW-RMH (talk) 17:56, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Asthma would be a good candidate for the next collaboration of the month. --WS (talk) 12:50, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Will have another look at asthma. It is a huge topic with a great deal of literature and thus difficult to approach.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Translation project - Health Speaks / HealthSpeaks

Just leaving a note here (no followup needed from the project team). A few usernames and user pages related to the translation project have caught the attention of spam patrollers (see this UAA report). I wanted to leave a note here so that other patrollers may find this and avoid biting those who participate in the project.  7  03:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Is there still anyone active here?

I am restarting a translation effort. Is anyone here still interested?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Please see here if you are. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:26, 29 April 2012 (UTC)