The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot ( talk) 30 December 2020 [1].
Ga speakers in southern Ghana have two words for skin wounds: fla for "normal" wounds that heal in weeks to months, and aboabone for "abnormal" wounds that linger and sometimes never heal. More recently we've taken to calling these "abnormal" wounds Buruli ulcer. What begins with a bacterial skin infection can become an enormous yet painless open ulcer. The FARC at Chagas disease earlier this year got me interested in neglected tropical diseases, and this is the first one alphabetically. After a GA review by Tom (LT), extensive commentary from SandyGeorgia and Spicy, and a coat of polish from Nikkimaria and Hog Farm, I think it's ready to shine. I look forward to hearing your thoughts. Ajpolino ( talk) 15:16, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
ALT text, captions and other aspects are fine. At first glance the article's sourcing is properly and consistently formatted. It seems like all sources except as noted below seem to be WP:MEDRS compliant. No spotchecks done, though. Vincent 2018 is a primary source but using it to elaborate on a case that is mentioned by another, MEDRS-compliant sources seems OK for me. MacCallum 1948 is 70+ old but the way it's used in the article seems like an acceptable use of ancient sources. Röltgen and Pluschke 2020 is in a publication by Frontiers Media, which is a somewhat dodgy source - are folks OK with it? Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 17:27, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
I'll read through the article again and post my comments here over the next few days. Full disclosure: I was involved in the pre-FAC review for this article, and I've made a few edits to it, mostly image changes and minor copyediting. Spicy ( talk) 13:04, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Once in the skin M. ulcerans grows and releases the toxin mycolactone which blocks the normal function of cells, resulting in tissue death...- I would have put a comma after "mycolactone" (possible this is an ENGVAR thing)
may involve the bite of an aquatic animalThe body of the article seems to say that aquatic insects are more commonly implicated
Buruli ulcer occurs in rural areas near slow-moving or stagnant waterThis feels a bit repetitive since the previous paragraph says "The bacteria live in aquatic environments, particularly in slow-moving or stagnant water." I get why you're reiterating this since it's not always safe to assume there's a one-to-one relationship between where the bacteria live and where cases occur, but maybe this can be rephrased a bit so the wording doesn't duplicate that of the preceding paragraph.
...secondary infection should be suspected when a wound develops cellulitis or becomes painful.and Yotsu, et al. 2018, "Description of the condition"
A typical ulcer usually has necrotic, undermined edges, and is often painless (unless complicated by secondary infection). I've added a bit to that effect in Signs & symptoms.
with the ulcer a few centimeters wider underneath the skin than the skin wound itself- is it necessary to specify skin wound, or would just "wound" be okay?
can be replaced by inelastic scar tissue- could "inelastic" be replaced with a simpler word such as "stiff", or would meaning be lost?
Despite sometimes large ulcers, people with Buruli ulcer tend to remain in otherwise good health- I have some issues with this sentence. I get what you're trying to say - that people rarely die from it or develop life-threatening complications - but there's a large grey area in between "dying" and "in good health". I am not sure "otherwise good health" is a great representation of the sources, which say, for example "Buruli ulcer is a disabling skin infection...leading to functional disability, loss of economic productivity, and social stigma" (UpToDate), "it leads to contractures that cause disfigurement and long-term disability and has a high social stigma" (Guarner, 2019), and "Buruli ulcer, caused by Mycobacterium ulcerans, is a chronic debilitating disease" (WHO factsheet). I would be more specific about what you mean by "good health".
Category I describes a single small ulcer that is less than 5 centimetres (2.0 inches). Category II describes ulcers that are larger and can be up to 15 centimetres (5.9 in).- Does having multiple ulcers place you in category II or category III? It's not entirely clear from the phrasing
Sec61 inhibition prevents cells from signaling to activate the immune system, resulting in ulcers that lack infiltrating immune cells.- the "resulting in ulcers that..." phrasing seems a bit awkward because, if I've understood the article correctly, the inhibition of signalling causes immunosuppression but doesn't cause the ulcer itself
poor wound care is associated with a higher risk of acquiring Buruli ulcer.[13] Wearing pants and long-sleeved shirts is associated with a lower risk of Buruli ulcer- phrasing is a bit repetitive, could be varied
This method correctly detects M. ulcerans... In practice microscopy correctly detects M. ulcerans in just...I think "correctly" should be removed here, because someone who is not familiar with the concepts of sensitivity and specificity could get the wrong idea from the way this is phrased. The sources are talking about sensitivity, and (as you know) sensitivity evaluates the test's susceptibility to false negatives, not its susceptibility to false positives. But by saying "correctly detected", you raise the possibility that it could be "incorrectly detected", which implies a false positive result. The sentences already say "...in infected people" which means the positive results are correct.
to biopsy tissue from the ulcer- this may just be personal preference but the use of "biopsy" as a verb feels awkward to me. You could say "to take a tissue sample from the ulcer" instead
Injections of M. ulcerans caused ulcers in...bare past tense seems odd here - why not "have been shown to cause ulcers in"...
Overall the article is very clearly written, concise, and easy to understand - an impressive achievement.
Since this is a first-time nomination it will need a source spotcheck. I'll consign myself to doing this as I have first-hand experience of how hard it can be to find someone willing to spotcheck a medical article :) Stay tuned. Spicy ( talk) 01:34, 21 November 2020 (UTC) Here we go:
Random thoughts:
I haven't fully reviewed the citations for consistency because I'm not any good at that, but I did notice that while a lot of the sources are open access, only a few have the open access icon. I believe you're required to be consistent on whether you use that icon or not.
No copyvio or close paraphrasing concerns. Spicy ( talk) 18:33, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
My concerns have been addressed and I'm happy to support this article for FA status. I will say that I thought the article seemed a bit brief at first, but I've compared it against recent reviews on the subject and found it to be suitably comprehensive for a general audience; I didn't see anything that ought to be covered that wasn't. This is an impressively clearly-written article on an important topic. Many thanks to the nominator. Spicy ( talk) 22:25, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
For what it is worth, I checked 5 or 6 cites while completing my review and found no issues. Gog the Mild ( talk) 22:22, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
My comments and suggestions organised by section. I think it is a well-written and organised article with good referencing. JFW | T@lk 12:11, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
@ Jfdwolff: I think that's everything. Thank you very much for taking the time to read and comment. Your feedback is much appreciated. Please feel free to add any additional thoughts and I'll get to it asap. I hope you're staying well! Ajpolino ( talk) 19:33, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Recusing from coordinator duties to review this.
A very neat article. Gog the Mild ( talk) 17:00, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Nearly five weeks in and only one support. No action at all over the past week, despite unaddressed reviewer comments two weeks old. I am aware of "Ask me for anything but time" and that even FAC nominators have lives; nevertheless, the coordinators are going to be getting a bit twitchy and it would be a crying shame for this nomination to be archived after all of the work which has gone into it so far. Gog the Mild ( talk) 16:29, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
@ Peacemaker67: because this affects Australia, perhaps it will interest you in terms of branching out beyond MILHIST content reviews. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:06, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Planning to start in once Ajpolino has finished addressing Gog's comments. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:06, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot ( talk) 30 December 2020 [1].
Ga speakers in southern Ghana have two words for skin wounds: fla for "normal" wounds that heal in weeks to months, and aboabone for "abnormal" wounds that linger and sometimes never heal. More recently we've taken to calling these "abnormal" wounds Buruli ulcer. What begins with a bacterial skin infection can become an enormous yet painless open ulcer. The FARC at Chagas disease earlier this year got me interested in neglected tropical diseases, and this is the first one alphabetically. After a GA review by Tom (LT), extensive commentary from SandyGeorgia and Spicy, and a coat of polish from Nikkimaria and Hog Farm, I think it's ready to shine. I look forward to hearing your thoughts. Ajpolino ( talk) 15:16, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
ALT text, captions and other aspects are fine. At first glance the article's sourcing is properly and consistently formatted. It seems like all sources except as noted below seem to be WP:MEDRS compliant. No spotchecks done, though. Vincent 2018 is a primary source but using it to elaborate on a case that is mentioned by another, MEDRS-compliant sources seems OK for me. MacCallum 1948 is 70+ old but the way it's used in the article seems like an acceptable use of ancient sources. Röltgen and Pluschke 2020 is in a publication by Frontiers Media, which is a somewhat dodgy source - are folks OK with it? Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 17:27, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
I'll read through the article again and post my comments here over the next few days. Full disclosure: I was involved in the pre-FAC review for this article, and I've made a few edits to it, mostly image changes and minor copyediting. Spicy ( talk) 13:04, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Once in the skin M. ulcerans grows and releases the toxin mycolactone which blocks the normal function of cells, resulting in tissue death...- I would have put a comma after "mycolactone" (possible this is an ENGVAR thing)
may involve the bite of an aquatic animalThe body of the article seems to say that aquatic insects are more commonly implicated
Buruli ulcer occurs in rural areas near slow-moving or stagnant waterThis feels a bit repetitive since the previous paragraph says "The bacteria live in aquatic environments, particularly in slow-moving or stagnant water." I get why you're reiterating this since it's not always safe to assume there's a one-to-one relationship between where the bacteria live and where cases occur, but maybe this can be rephrased a bit so the wording doesn't duplicate that of the preceding paragraph.
...secondary infection should be suspected when a wound develops cellulitis or becomes painful.and Yotsu, et al. 2018, "Description of the condition"
A typical ulcer usually has necrotic, undermined edges, and is often painless (unless complicated by secondary infection). I've added a bit to that effect in Signs & symptoms.
with the ulcer a few centimeters wider underneath the skin than the skin wound itself- is it necessary to specify skin wound, or would just "wound" be okay?
can be replaced by inelastic scar tissue- could "inelastic" be replaced with a simpler word such as "stiff", or would meaning be lost?
Despite sometimes large ulcers, people with Buruli ulcer tend to remain in otherwise good health- I have some issues with this sentence. I get what you're trying to say - that people rarely die from it or develop life-threatening complications - but there's a large grey area in between "dying" and "in good health". I am not sure "otherwise good health" is a great representation of the sources, which say, for example "Buruli ulcer is a disabling skin infection...leading to functional disability, loss of economic productivity, and social stigma" (UpToDate), "it leads to contractures that cause disfigurement and long-term disability and has a high social stigma" (Guarner, 2019), and "Buruli ulcer, caused by Mycobacterium ulcerans, is a chronic debilitating disease" (WHO factsheet). I would be more specific about what you mean by "good health".
Category I describes a single small ulcer that is less than 5 centimetres (2.0 inches). Category II describes ulcers that are larger and can be up to 15 centimetres (5.9 in).- Does having multiple ulcers place you in category II or category III? It's not entirely clear from the phrasing
Sec61 inhibition prevents cells from signaling to activate the immune system, resulting in ulcers that lack infiltrating immune cells.- the "resulting in ulcers that..." phrasing seems a bit awkward because, if I've understood the article correctly, the inhibition of signalling causes immunosuppression but doesn't cause the ulcer itself
poor wound care is associated with a higher risk of acquiring Buruli ulcer.[13] Wearing pants and long-sleeved shirts is associated with a lower risk of Buruli ulcer- phrasing is a bit repetitive, could be varied
This method correctly detects M. ulcerans... In practice microscopy correctly detects M. ulcerans in just...I think "correctly" should be removed here, because someone who is not familiar with the concepts of sensitivity and specificity could get the wrong idea from the way this is phrased. The sources are talking about sensitivity, and (as you know) sensitivity evaluates the test's susceptibility to false negatives, not its susceptibility to false positives. But by saying "correctly detected", you raise the possibility that it could be "incorrectly detected", which implies a false positive result. The sentences already say "...in infected people" which means the positive results are correct.
to biopsy tissue from the ulcer- this may just be personal preference but the use of "biopsy" as a verb feels awkward to me. You could say "to take a tissue sample from the ulcer" instead
Injections of M. ulcerans caused ulcers in...bare past tense seems odd here - why not "have been shown to cause ulcers in"...
Overall the article is very clearly written, concise, and easy to understand - an impressive achievement.
Since this is a first-time nomination it will need a source spotcheck. I'll consign myself to doing this as I have first-hand experience of how hard it can be to find someone willing to spotcheck a medical article :) Stay tuned. Spicy ( talk) 01:34, 21 November 2020 (UTC) Here we go:
Random thoughts:
I haven't fully reviewed the citations for consistency because I'm not any good at that, but I did notice that while a lot of the sources are open access, only a few have the open access icon. I believe you're required to be consistent on whether you use that icon or not.
No copyvio or close paraphrasing concerns. Spicy ( talk) 18:33, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
My concerns have been addressed and I'm happy to support this article for FA status. I will say that I thought the article seemed a bit brief at first, but I've compared it against recent reviews on the subject and found it to be suitably comprehensive for a general audience; I didn't see anything that ought to be covered that wasn't. This is an impressively clearly-written article on an important topic. Many thanks to the nominator. Spicy ( talk) 22:25, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
For what it is worth, I checked 5 or 6 cites while completing my review and found no issues. Gog the Mild ( talk) 22:22, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
My comments and suggestions organised by section. I think it is a well-written and organised article with good referencing. JFW | T@lk 12:11, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
@ Jfdwolff: I think that's everything. Thank you very much for taking the time to read and comment. Your feedback is much appreciated. Please feel free to add any additional thoughts and I'll get to it asap. I hope you're staying well! Ajpolino ( talk) 19:33, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Recusing from coordinator duties to review this.
A very neat article. Gog the Mild ( talk) 17:00, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Nearly five weeks in and only one support. No action at all over the past week, despite unaddressed reviewer comments two weeks old. I am aware of "Ask me for anything but time" and that even FAC nominators have lives; nevertheless, the coordinators are going to be getting a bit twitchy and it would be a crying shame for this nomination to be archived after all of the work which has gone into it so far. Gog the Mild ( talk) 16:29, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
@ Peacemaker67: because this affects Australia, perhaps it will interest you in terms of branching out beyond MILHIST content reviews. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:06, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Planning to start in once Ajpolino has finished addressing Gog's comments. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:06, 27 December 2020 (UTC)