This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 135 | ← | Archive 138 | Archive 139 | Archive 140 | Archive 141 | Archive 142 | → | Archive 145 |
Since there is no longer a members list, rather something generated by a bot from a template, how can we know who they are so we can welcome new members? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:35, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Genopole is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genopole until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. -- 2A01:CB00:B51:3E00:81BB:52E0:71A:AA4A ( talk) 12:20, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Can someone here tell me if a preprint is considered a reliable source? I'm asking about the following citation [1] in the article COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. I searched the talk archive and WP:MEDRS and didn't find an explicit answer. Thank you in advance. - SusanLesch ( talk) 18:15, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
References
Note that the medRxiv disclaimer about a preprint not having peer-review (click "what does this mean?") states "articles on medRxiv have not been finalized by authors, might contain errors, and report information that has not yet been accepted or endorsed in any way by the scientific or medical community." That's enough to conclude the article in question is preliminary until the final peer-reviewed article is published. Further, despite reporting assessment of some 50 studies on COVID-19 infection fatality rate, the article produces a rather useless conclusion: Infection fatality rates ranged from 0.00% to 1.63% and corrected values ranged from 0.00% to 1.31%. Zefr ( talk) 19:04, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
They are not suitable even for use in the press, and are a long way from meeting our standards for reliable sources for medical content. -- RexxS ( talk) 19:33, 16 August 2020 (UTC)Caution: Preprints are preliminary reports of work that have not been certified by peer review. They should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information.
The new article
HPG80 is about the extracellular and oncogenic version of progastrin
. Problem is, there seems to be a total of two papers in existence that even use the term
[1]. I don't know the area and can't decide whether this should be moved to
extracellular progastrin or similar, or merged to
progastrin. Could project members take a look? Cheers --
Elmidae (
talk ·
contribs) 22:03, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
I have nominated Parkinson's disease for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:44, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps we could take these on, one per month, and bring them back to Featured standard? Or touch bases with the original authors who are still active to ask them to review and update as needed? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:28, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Pageviews 90 days 14 March – 12 Jun |
FA status | Article | Notes |
---|---|---|---|
95,628 | Needs review | Acute myeloid leukemia | User:MastCell 2006 promotion |
316,865 | Out of compliance | Alzheimer's disease | 2008 promotion, both nominators long departed |
711,779 | Defeatured | Asperger syndrome | Defeatured April 2020, Eubulides long gone |
387,287 | Out of compliance | Autism | 2007 promotion, Eubulides long gone, |
91,632 | 2020 review | Chagas disease | Restored at FAR May 2020 by Spicy and Ajpolino |
62,337 | Needs review | Cholangiocarcinoma | User:MastCell 2007 promotion |
247,344 | Needs review | Coeliac disease | 2007 promotion User:Jfdwolff |
207,235 | 2020 promotion | Dementia with Lewy bodies | Featured May 2020, SandyGeorgia, Colin |
359,720 | Out of compliance | Dengue fever | 2011 promotion User:Jfdwolff, Doc James |
2,282 | Needs review | Diffuse panbronchiolitis | 2011 promotion nominator long gone |
35,986 | Needs checking | Endometrial cancer | 2014 promotion User:Keilana |
27,411 | Needs review | Hepatorenal syndrome | 2009 promotion User:Samir |
327,736 | Defeatured | Huntington's disease | Defeatured July 2020, 2009 promotion nominator long gone |
1,198,247 | Needs review | Influenza | 2006 promotion Tim Vickers |
124,610 | Needs review | Lung cancer | 2007 promotion User:Axl |
246,437 | Needs checking | Major depressive disorder | 2008 promotion check with User:Casliber |
3,992 | Needs review | Management of multiple sclerosis | 2007 promotion main contributor long gone |
287,700 | Needs review | Meningitis | 2009 promotion User:Jfdwolff |
435,231 | Out of compliance | Multiple sclerosis | 2005 promotion, main contributor long gone User:Wouterstomp might help |
16,180 | Needs review | Osteochondritis dissecans | 2009 promotion nominator long gone |
60,340 | Needs checking | Oxygen toxicity | 2009 promotion, check with User:RexxS |
161,500 | Needs checking | Pancreatic cancer | 2015 promotion, check with User:Johnbod |
427,504 | Out of compliance | Parkinson's disease | 2011 promotion nominator long gone |
613,002 | Needs review | Polio | 2007 promotion nominator long gone |
20,577 | Needs review | Pulmonary contusion | 2008 promotion User:Delldot |
169,934 | Needs checking | Rhabdomyolysis | 2011 promotion User:Jfdwolff |
466,012 | 2020 Overhaul | Schizophrenia | 2020 Overhaul Casliber |
78,035 | Needs checking | Subarachnoid hemorrhage | 2008 promotion, User:Jfdwolff |
7,433 | Needs checking | Thyrotoxic periodic paralysis | 2011 promotion User:Jfdwolff |
335,270 | 2020 Overhaul | Tourette syndrome | Overhauled for March 2020 mainpage appearance, SandyGeorgia, Colin |
293,955 | Needs review per lead citation | Amphetamine | 2015 promotion User:Seppi333 |
254,903 | Needs checking | Bupropion | 2013 FAR |
118,211 | 2015 FAR | Cerebellum | 2015 FAR |
152,453 | Needs review | Genetics | 2008 promotion User:Mad Price Ball |
166,062 | Needs review | Helicobacter pylori | 2008 FAR. Lead is a mess, needs overall review |
144,345 | Needs review | Hippocampus | 2009 promotion, nominator gone |
296,913 | Needs review | Immune system | 2007 promotion nominator gone |
453,695 | 2020 Overhaul | Introduction to viruses | Overhauled in March 2020 for mainpage appearance, Graham Beards |
346,263 | Maintained by Colin | Ketogenic diet | 2009 promotion, maintained by Colin |
39,422 | Needs review | Linezolid | User:Fvasconcellos 2009 promotion |
1,525 | Needs review | Major urinary proteins | 2010 promotion nominator gone |
186,142 | Needs checking | Menstrual cycle | 2008 FAR |
158,247 | Needs review | Metabolism | 2007 promotion Tim Vickers |
115,648 | Maintained by Graham Beards | Rotavirus | Maintained by Graham Beards |
229,335 | Maintained by Graham Beards | Social history of viruses | Maintained by Graham Beards |
2,261,992 | Maintained by Graham Beards | Virus | Maintained by Graham Beards |
39,139 | Needs review | Water fluoridation | 2009 promotion, Eubulides long gone |
Well that's disappointing to see, though not surprising. I'd be happy to participate in a monthly focused update. Also happy to drive updates on any of the microbe-related articles (or even, painful as it might be, Tim's Metabolism article). Thanks for doing all the research here! Ajpolino ( talk) 03:04, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
2007-2011 was a golden age. Is this decline reflected in other Wikiprojects? Was that a Wikipedia peak or a WP:MED peak? -- Colin° Talk 20:31, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
What's wrong with amphetamine? In any event, if either that article or beta-hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid have issues that need to be addressed in the future, just ping me. I'll probably have more time for WP in 8-12 months from now. Please ping me in a reply. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 05:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Should we update MEDMOS first, and review the existing FAs afterwards? Or the other way around? Changing "the rules" in the middle of a review may be irritating. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 18:12, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Hey, all (or anyone interested) ... PainProf has begun work there, so I will also engage, but I think it's too much work for two of us to do alone. Are others interested? If so, let's please convene at Talk:Parkinson's disease; the FAR (at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Parkinson's disease/archive1) gives an idea of the work needed, and there are numerous recent reviews mentioned on talk that haven't been accounted for or incorporated. Perhaps we can coordinate our "who is doing what" work; I am best for citation and MOS cleanup and overall watching out for things that are not FA-compliant. Others can help by updating old citations, reading the new reviews and using them to either update or incorporate new information, or just do all sorts of general stuff, like prose cleanup, suggestions on talk for work needed, etc.
One note: for decades, we at WPMED have ignored a common requirement for verifiability with respect to page numbers (or section headings or chapters at least) being needed on lengthy sources like books, PDFs, or very long journal articles; see dementia with Lewy bodies#References, complete blood count#References and Buruli ulcer#references. I am not sure why we thought we didn't have to meet WP:V just the way every other content area did, but that was our standard. As you are adding new information, or verifying old information, please add a page number or section heading from the source. When we are done, I will convert the entire article, if the star is saved (not gonna do the work if we don't save the star, as it will take days). You can do that by adding an inline hidden comment, or by (temporarily) using the Template:Rp as Spicy had done in the older versions of complete blood count. That will leave us temporarily with inconsistent citations, which is a breach of WP:WIAFA, but the idea is that I will fix them all before the FAR closes. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:37, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
If you read more than a few of our drug articles, you tend to find the same two factoids appearing in the lead, and only in the lead, citing primary sources. As such, their sources don't themselves indicate that they have WP:WEIGHT to be mentioned in the article, never mind have prominence in the lead:
References
But WP:WEIGHT requires us to examine what the body of secondary literature considers important and to bear in that mind wrt the proportion and prominence given to a fact or claim. Does the secondary literature generally mention both these facts? And if so, do they give it such importance that they can't wait to mention it within the body text rather than the first few paragraphs or even page one?
The presence of a drug on the WHO Model List of Essential Medicines is clearly important on that list article, but is the inverse true for all the hundreds of drugs on the list? I'm aware that the text in many articles used to boldly claim ", the safest and most effective medicines needed in a health system", which is being removed already from many. It was an over-simplification of the properties of the list, which is complicated by being split into core and complementary lists, a factor that none of our article mention. This seems more a feature of building and supplying a healthcare system with a range of medicines to treat common conditions, than it does a feature of the drug itself. It doesn't confer magical properties upon the drug (for example, there is no obligation on manufacturers to make generic forms widely and cheaply available, and in reality many drugs on the list are not widely and cheaply available). So I wonder if a drug's presence on the list matters to WHO, healthcare charities and some government healthcare systems, but not so much otherwise. What does the body of secondary literature say when discussing each drug? Does this get a mention?
Similarly, we have the factoids about the sales rank in the US in 2017 and often a count of prescriptions in the US. What our text neglects to mention is that these figures are an estimate based on an annual survey: they aren't actual sales figures or counts of prescriptions, but figures extrapolated from polling. Again, what does the body of secondary literature say when discussing each drug? Does this get a mention? Thoughts? -- Colin° Talk 15:32, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
In answering some queries for Memdmarti on estogen-related articles, I have found another issue—dosage relative to WP:NOT and WP:MEDMOS. There are multiple templates causing a problem because they are used in multiple articles in collapsed form: text is not supposed to be hidden in articles ( MOS:DONTHIDE), so that needs fixing, but it is also unclear to me whether these templates should be used as they are at all (NOTADVICE).
See a sample list of many of them at Template:Estrogen dosages for breast cancer.
Then see a sample of how they are being used here—in collapsed form (DONTHIDE, and should not really be centered), and because the whole templates are included in multiple articles, their use in many articles may be UNDUE as well as off-topic to specific articles. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:47, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Could those knowledgeable have a look (renal)? This article is created by Anders Grubb and extensively cites ... Anders Grubb. There are two reviews by ... Anders Grubb.
[5] It appears to be advancing some of the author's hypotheses, and additionally needs some style and writing cleanup. There are numerous reviews available, and I suspect the article could be written in a way that would comply with secondary sourcing, if someone has the time. On the surface, the situation appears similar to
Ian Brockington and
menstrual psychosis; if this is a recognized condition, so far only Grubb and colleagues seem to be publishing about it. I have gone through and identified the primary sources and reviews, but many of the reviews cited have nothing to do with shrunken pore syndrome, so there seems to be a lot of synthesis, and I am unsure how much to outright delete.
Related at Cystatin C. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:36, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
References
What do we know about this journal, that published a copyvio of dementia with Lewy bodies?
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:50, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
@ Headbomb: within the links above are multiple journals that could be added to your non-reliable script, at minimum these. @ Ceoil, Colin, Outriggr, Seppi333, and Casliber: who were also plagiarized at DLB, along with Jytdog, Tryptofish, Doc James and Yomangani. Adrian J. Hunter, WhatamIdoing, and others edited later I think, as we were prepping for FAC in 2020. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:13, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
The stuff I wrote in the amphetamine article was extensively plagiarized a while back by some Omics journal (see the notice box on its talk page). If you want a copy of my demand letter, which the journal immediately actioned/forwarded to the authors and sorted out within a week, then LMK. Ping me again though because I’m stupidly busy off-wiki. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 20:34, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Started gathering info and questions at User:SandyGeorgia/AlainFymat SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:34, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
(Just catching up after a walking holiday) This reminds me a bit of a similar fraud over photos at Commons Featured Pictures. (Sadly, it can happen the other way round too: we recently had an account on Commons who won lots of featured pictures and then we discovered they had stolen, not taken, all of them). I think the steps at the Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks#Non-compliance process look good advice. Unlike pictures, it is rather more work to explain the copyvio, so I suggest to keep the letter short, with any tedious explanation of the violations as an appendix. There are key phrases in these letters that must be used and are not optional, and important to state that it is "my" copyright that is being violated. I don't think there is any need to elaborate in the letter more than necessary -- they will have encountered this before and recognise the key phrases mean that the cogs are turning on a fixed legal process. See also Wikipedia:Standard license violation letter.
For what it is worth, I think tackling such extensive violation of several important topics is important mainly because if we don't then the copyright may come back round to bit us: some journal will claim our article stole their material. As far as "Someone is being an asshole on the internet" goes, my strong advice is generally to ignore it. -- Colin° Talk 10:20, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
My first drafts of letters are at User:SandyGeorgia/AlainFymat#Letters; if I have to escalate beyond that, the letters will come from an attorney instead of me. Feedback appreciated at User talk:SandyGeorgia/AlainFymat#Letters. Regards, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:33, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
More found, so one to watch for in predatory journal topics in neurology and cancer; see Talk:Dementia with Lewy bodies/Alain L. Fymat. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 05:28, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
This week’s Signpost ... mentions ... Wikipedia, The Free Online Medical Encyclopedia Anyone Can Plagiarize: Time to Address Wiki-Plagiarism. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:36, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Look at this; the first thing en.Wikipedia readers encounter is a link taking them off en.Wikipedia, to an old version. A project external to en.Wikipedia as the first thing encountered by our readers, and a dated "peer review" (meaning a few Wikipedians looked at it), while Wikipedia is dynamic, not static, and articles change.
The same external project template was found inappropriately used on multiple medical articles, including Featured articles ( Cerebellum, Hippocampus and many more medical articles), where it was listed as a reference (which it is not). The external articles also breach WP:ELNO- does not include info that would be needed if the article were an FA -- so do not belong in external links. And they become dated as the articles evolve.
This is an example of misplaced priorities affecting en.Wikipedia medical content-- that is, rather than improving content on en.Wikipedia, content is improved off-en.WIkipedia and then en.Wikipedia readers are directed elsewhere. This template belongs on talk, and I have moved most of the medical ones there, although I have missed some. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:58, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
maybe it should be deletedcomment would link to a rational for deletion. If this was good faith error, here is a link to the previous deletion discussion for reference. If not, the link can sound like nominating template deletion as a retaliation for edit reversion. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo) talk 11:45, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
The licenses Wikipedia uses grant free access to our content in the same sense that free software is licensed freely. Wikipedia content can be copied, modified, and redistributed if and only if the copied version is made available on the same terms to others and acknowledgment of the authors of the Wikipedia article used is included (a link back to the article is generally thought to satisfy the attribution requirement; see below for more details).SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:40, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
This does not belong in an article indeed, please remove them, or maybe move them to talk. It looks like advertising. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 17:56, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
rather than improving content on en.Wikipedia, content is improved off-en.WIkipedia and then en.Wikipedia readers are directed elsewhere.I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding of what has happened. The content is created or improved off-Wikipedia and then imported into Wikipedia. The off-Wikipedia content is static, whereas the on-Wikipedia content can continued to be improved. {{ Academic peer reviewed}} is only to provide attribution and is similar in purpose to {{ NLM content}} and similar templates. Hence I think it is appropriate to include this template at the bottom of the page. Boghog ( talk) 18:10, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
And we have multiple cases working the other directionThat may be true in other cases, but certainly not true in this case. The PLOS Computational Biology article was published on 28 May 2015 and the Wikipedia article was created on 13 June 2015. That also applies to all other articles that use this template.
Back to the template. A search only shows 41 articles using it, along with 15 talk pages. If the consensus is for it to only be placed on talk pages, I can modify the template to only display on talk pages and give a message in preview if placed on an article page to avoid future problems. It wouldn't take many minutes to move all of the present 41 uses from article to talk. Can we try to find a consensus on that single issue first? -- RexxS ( talk) 21:21, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Apologies for being late to this thread, so I've responded to a few different items together and tried to semi-structure it and include relevant links where possible.
Usage scenarios These templates are used in a couple of scenarios and by multiple different journals ( category):
For a bit of the historical background, there's a rough timeline on slide 10 of this presentation (video link in description).
Template aims In my opinion, the template aims to achieve a few goals which sometimes overlap:
Template location I would broadly suggest that templates in articles are for readers and those on talkpages are for editors, since the majority of readers don't use (often unaware of) talkpages. That's why I've thought that it would be valuable to represent the information on the article page. TBH, I'd actually support having FAs more clearly marked on the article page, since users commonly don't realise the significance of the top icon star. I agree that the template shouldn't be at the top of the article page though. I would have thought that placing it underneath the main page navboxes is also going to far in the opposite direction. The reason that I have thought placing in the references section is logical is that it relates to sourcing and information provenance. The location of similar templates is often inconsistent ( example at top of refs; example in own sources subsection).
Template formatting & content I'd originally reformatted it from plain text to something similar to {{
Confusing}}
or {{
Missing_information}}
to try and be more consistent in style. If formatted to something more in the style of {{
CC-notice}}
that is fine by me, though noting again that the template is trying to fill several goals. The limitation of using a sister project only template is that many instances do not draw from a wikijournal user group journal, but instead from a PLOS journal or other publishers (for example
doi:10.15347/wjs/2019.006 versus
doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1008320). Two things the template currently lacks: Mentioning the specific license being used in the attribution, and whether it's
J2W or
W2J. I think the citation does need to be indicated somewhere, as it would seem odd to have e.g.
TIM_barrel or
Pfemp_1 include sources for the images but not the text. Since people seem to be happy with the formatting of the
copy of the template in talkspace, below are suggestions for how the copy of the template could behave in mainspace (suggested location top of references section, bottom of references section as a fallback option):
I think including the year is useful so that people know how much the wikipedia page is likely to have evolved since then. I'm aiming to better encode whether the article is W2J or J2W in wikidata ( example) to automate the template's display.
Other items I'd contest that One knows not how these peer reviewers are chosen
and dubious peer reviews at best
. The peer reviewer comments are actually published openly as are the editor instructions (links for
WJ and
PLOS), and guidelines for reviewers (links for
WJ and
PLOS). This is actually more transparent than many other academic journals (where peer reviews are typically hidden and reviewer guidelines are rarely open). Indeed the PLOS Comp Bio open peer reviews were some of the earliest to be open for that journal.
I'd contest that This external project (and others) are porting full articles back and forth without proper licensing and attribution
. Whenever articles are ported out of WP by the projects that use {{
Academic peer reviewed}}, the page includes:
I hope that this at least shows good faith efforts to get the licensing correctly organised even when sometimes there are gaps!
I'd contest the serving no purpose other than draining resources from Wikipedia
comment. I really wouldn't characterise it as that. I actually think that the projects involved have been very useful in drawing significant content and input from many people who would otherwise not have contributed, as authors editors and peer reviewers. Both the
J2W and
W2J models of collaboration are not in competition with WP, but rather deliberately trying to be on tool in the toolbox for bridging the academia-wikipedia gap and getting in outside contribution.
I realise that over the last hours a few templates have been moved so the placement is now pretty inconsistent, but can I also suggest gaining input from other groups? It affects a few other wikiprojects ( category), whose users may not commonly view WT:MED. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo) talk 11:45, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
{{
OA-attribution}}
.This article was
adapted from
Matt Ravenhall; Nives Škunca; Florent Lassalle;
Christophe Dessimoz (May 2015).
"Inferring horizontal gene transfer".
PLOS Computational Biology. 11 (5): e1004095.
doi:
10.1371/JOURNAL.PCBI.1004095.
ISSN
1553-734X.
PMC
4462595.
PMID
26020646.
Wikidata
Q21045419.{{
cite journal}} : CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link) after
peer review (
reviewer reports) under a
CC BY 4.0 license (
2015). |
This article was
submitted to WikiJournal of Science for external
peer review in 6 February 2019 (
reviewer reports). It was published as
Ignacio L. B. Munguira; et al. (17 August 2019).
"Lysenin" (PDF). WikiJournal of Science. 2 (1): 6.
doi:
10.15347/WJS/2019.006.
ISSN
2470-6345.
Wikidata
Q76846397.{{
cite journal}} : CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
and the updated content was reintegrated into the Wikipedia page under a
CC BY-SA-3.0 license (
2019). |
This article was
adapted from
Matt Ravenhall; Nives Škunca; Florent Lassalle;
Christophe Dessimoz (May 2015).
"Inferring horizontal gene transfer".
PLOS Computational Biology. 11 (5): e1004095.
doi:
10.1371/JOURNAL.PCBI.1004095.
ISSN
1553-734X.
PMC
4462595.
PMID
26020646.
Wikidata
Q21045419.{{
cite journal}} : CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link) after
peer review (
reviewer reports) under a
CC BY 4.0 license (
2015). |
This article was
submitted to WikiJournal of Science for external
peer review in 6 February 2019 (
reviewer reports). It was published as
Ignacio L. B. Munguira; et al. (17 August 2019).
"Lysenin" (PDF). WikiJournal of Science. 2 (1): 6.
doi:
10.15347/WJS/2019.006.
ISSN
2470-6345.
Wikidata
Q76846397.{{
cite journal}} : CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
and the updated content was reintegrated into the Wikipedia page under a
CC BY-SA-3.0 license (
2019). |
{{
OA-attribution}}
templates are mainly at the base of references section (though usually when there are small number of refs;
example), the top of the refs (
example) or in a separate notes/sources section (
example) and sometimes inline (
example). I think that top of references is reasonable given that the content. Especiially since the majority of text is coming from that . Similar templates include: {{
PlanetMath attribution}}
either below refs (
example), below ext links (
example) or in sources (
example); {{
CC-notice}}
in attributions (
example) end of refs (
example) or inline (
example);{{
InterPro content}}
placed top of refs (
example) or bottom of refs (
example) or further reading (
example); {{
CCBYSASource}}
bottom of refs (
example) or below ext links (
example); {{
NSW-SHR-CC}}
placed in attributions (
example). The talkpage copy of the template could be adapted for articles in review to invite further feedback and contribution (
example), or those for declined (
example). I hope I've managed to satisfy your main concerns.
T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)
talk 06:25, 15 August 2020 (UTC)This is very good progress, sorting what basically amounts to a standard attribution template from what is the sorta/kinda equivalent of a Wikipedia:WikiProject template used on talk, or media recognition, etc. That you have also sorted the here to there, there to here issue is grand. But I submit that we aren't there yet. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:36, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
In other words, the long and short here is that these templates still aren't looking, feeling and acting like most templates on English Wikipedia, or giving either the reader or editor the most useful and helpful info. They are instead taking up a lot of real estate with lots of flashing lights that would make good advertising on a freeway billboard. It would be good to take into consideration that this "sister" project is no more of less than any other thing (ITN, OTD, FAC, WikiProject, DYK, etc) linked on talk, and trying to be more in line with everyone else would be nice; that would lend a better impression that this "sister" project is working to advance Wikipedia, rather than itself. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:48, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
{{
OA-attribution}}
and {{
NSW-SHR-CC}}
since it's attribing the source as a starting point for further evolution on WP. The talkpage version now uses {{
tmbox}}
and I've tried to minimise vertical space taken as far as possible (takes up 2 lines on my screen) whilst including more useful detail for editors. The main functional change is that where QID was previously optional, it's now required and all info is drawn from wikidata. The inclusion of QIDs is part of the {{
Cite_Q}}
template, which is somewhat linked to the broader
wikicite project to improve open citation information. I think the dengue issue was because it'd been because it didn't have the QID in the template. I've now fixed that. I'll get to work on ensuring all the wikidata is up to date with additional parameters.
Evolution and evolvability 07:48, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7286212/
Generally RT-PCR test is a gold standard for confirmation of Covid-19. But in some times if RT-PCR not available , why dont we take the D-Dimer values for Confirmation Covid-19? Fever, Cough and high levers of D-Dimer may gives a clue to physician to suspect Covid-19
( KJRMOR ( talk) 15:06, 23 August 2020 (UTC)) ( KJRMOR ( talk) 15:18, 23 August 2020 (UTC))
Hello, recently I created and moved injector pen to mainspace, fully well knowing that insulin pen and pen needles already exist. My thought process was that there quite honestly isn't much usable information in those two articles (one has zero references at all), and so I figured I'd start from scratch and make the article about the general device itself (as opposed to just being used for insulin). How would I go about redirecting the two articles and/or adding any useful information to injector pen, if that's in fact okay to do? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 22:06, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Discussion on renaming. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 10:42, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
The Favipiravir article contains a lot of COVID-related claims with inadequate sourcing, expert review needed. Thank you. It might also be worth keeping an eye on Alpha defensin. HLHJ ( talk) 05:26, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
We are requesting review of /info/en/?search=Draft:Expertscape, as many of the experts that are profiled often list and refer to the website in their pages.
Expertscape is a more data-driven (and more objective) alternative to /info/en/?search=U.S._News_%26_World_Report_Best_Hospitals_Rankings, as our expert directory is driven entirely by the data in /info/en/?search=PubMed. We recognize that there are limitations to using only publications, which we recognize here https://expertscape.com/help/gen_limitations, but it has proven to be an excellent objective resource for patients and referring physicians. (And it is evidently used extensively for grant applications and other recognition.)
Any advice or assistance would be appreciated.
Brendan B4chex11 ( talk) 14:59, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
This is incredibly helpful, and we can certainly do that homework. Thank you.
B4chex11 ( talk) 15:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Speaking as an academic with experience in published peer reviewed papers. If you only cite systematic reviews and meta analysis then many of your entries will be outdated. For a proper meta analysis most physicians academics would look for a subject where there are 2-3 randomised trials with somewhat contradicting results. Otherwise, if all of the randomised trials are of similar outcomes they risk not reporting anything new (more of the same). In certain fields you simply will not have 2-3 randomised trials and therefore will often not have a meta analysis or systematic review. Therefore, this guideline is handicapping you in way and leading to a situation where many of your medical entries (at least in ophthalmology) are severely outdated (>5 years) and irrelevant. Today I made changes in 9-10 entries (my first...) all of which were evidence based and Would be considered obvious/basic knowledge for many Ophthalmologists but all entries were reverted because I cited original articles (not reviews). Very discouraging. Highqualitycontent ( talk) 21:50, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
You make valid points. I am saying that in cases where there are no systemic reviews or meta analysis the next best thing should be allowed (a randomised controlled trial). By the way citing the success and relevance of Wikipedia now does not mean it will survive in 10 years if it’s criteria for evidence based medicine are faulted. Highqualitycontent ( talk) 23:21, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for readding the entry. I believe that in all the content I contributed I wrote in a careful manner. For instance you will see that I used phrasing such as “reported risk factors include....”. I think that the average joe wants to know what risk factors they may have before an ophthalmic procedure. Rarely would a systematic review or meta analysis or even a randomised controlled trial answer a question like that. Large epidemiological studies with huge number of patients (eyes) are the only ones that could possibly address questions like that and they are always retrospective. One of the entries (before my contribution) mentioned one risk factor without even citing any studies. All I did was add additional reported risk factors and cite literature.... I appreciate your willingness to see the points I’m trying to make. By the way, I wrote these entries for an average Joe not a PhD or MD. Highqualitycontent ( talk) 23:39, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind words. It actually means a lot considering that my entire life has been about evidence based medicine and when I see medical statements that are not backed by citations considered “kosher” but medical statements that are backed by papers published in leading journals (in my field) getting removed (forgive me) by non professionals (in my field) it is very frustrating. Highqualitycontent ( talk) 01:13, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
I hear your comments and raise ;). Please look at the entry where all of my changes were reverted: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LASIK
It is plagued with primary studies. An overwhelming majority. If you have decided to have a certain guideline that you claim you do then why are all of these references kept and the ones I suggested removed? Highqualitycontent ( talk) 11:23, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
{{Better source|date=August 2020}}
or specifically for primary sources, {{Primary source inline|date=August 2020}}
. Just add those codes right after the ref tags for the weak source.
WhatamIdoing (
talk) 15:01, 25 August 2020 (UTC)I really appreciate the input and discussion with everyone. I am an ophthalmologist and no doubt that if you put five doctors in a room you get 10 opinions. To make things even more complicated each physician has their own “interpretation” even of systematic reviews. For instance you can cite something written in the introduction of a systematic review (something that the paper did not even look into). Regarding the amblyopia article, great point, it is preliminary and therefore perhaps add that further studies are needed to confirm this treatment (or that it is debatable). Regarding LASIK I put in a bunch of more information about potential complications (which would actually make patients think twice before surgery). Which goes against my interest as a LASIK surgeon. I am happy to try to revamp the article and give tertiary references whenever possible but for some info that won’t be possible. I do think that very large studies with large amount of eyes should be considered legit,as long as words such as “may” or “can” etc... are used. Thoughts? Highqualitycontent ( talk) 16:50, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 135 | ← | Archive 138 | Archive 139 | Archive 140 | Archive 141 | Archive 142 | → | Archive 145 |
Since there is no longer a members list, rather something generated by a bot from a template, how can we know who they are so we can welcome new members? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:35, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Genopole is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genopole until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. -- 2A01:CB00:B51:3E00:81BB:52E0:71A:AA4A ( talk) 12:20, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Can someone here tell me if a preprint is considered a reliable source? I'm asking about the following citation [1] in the article COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. I searched the talk archive and WP:MEDRS and didn't find an explicit answer. Thank you in advance. - SusanLesch ( talk) 18:15, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
References
Note that the medRxiv disclaimer about a preprint not having peer-review (click "what does this mean?") states "articles on medRxiv have not been finalized by authors, might contain errors, and report information that has not yet been accepted or endorsed in any way by the scientific or medical community." That's enough to conclude the article in question is preliminary until the final peer-reviewed article is published. Further, despite reporting assessment of some 50 studies on COVID-19 infection fatality rate, the article produces a rather useless conclusion: Infection fatality rates ranged from 0.00% to 1.63% and corrected values ranged from 0.00% to 1.31%. Zefr ( talk) 19:04, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
They are not suitable even for use in the press, and are a long way from meeting our standards for reliable sources for medical content. -- RexxS ( talk) 19:33, 16 August 2020 (UTC)Caution: Preprints are preliminary reports of work that have not been certified by peer review. They should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information.
The new article
HPG80 is about the extracellular and oncogenic version of progastrin
. Problem is, there seems to be a total of two papers in existence that even use the term
[1]. I don't know the area and can't decide whether this should be moved to
extracellular progastrin or similar, or merged to
progastrin. Could project members take a look? Cheers --
Elmidae (
talk ·
contribs) 22:03, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
I have nominated Parkinson's disease for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:44, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps we could take these on, one per month, and bring them back to Featured standard? Or touch bases with the original authors who are still active to ask them to review and update as needed? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:28, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Pageviews 90 days 14 March – 12 Jun |
FA status | Article | Notes |
---|---|---|---|
95,628 | Needs review | Acute myeloid leukemia | User:MastCell 2006 promotion |
316,865 | Out of compliance | Alzheimer's disease | 2008 promotion, both nominators long departed |
711,779 | Defeatured | Asperger syndrome | Defeatured April 2020, Eubulides long gone |
387,287 | Out of compliance | Autism | 2007 promotion, Eubulides long gone, |
91,632 | 2020 review | Chagas disease | Restored at FAR May 2020 by Spicy and Ajpolino |
62,337 | Needs review | Cholangiocarcinoma | User:MastCell 2007 promotion |
247,344 | Needs review | Coeliac disease | 2007 promotion User:Jfdwolff |
207,235 | 2020 promotion | Dementia with Lewy bodies | Featured May 2020, SandyGeorgia, Colin |
359,720 | Out of compliance | Dengue fever | 2011 promotion User:Jfdwolff, Doc James |
2,282 | Needs review | Diffuse panbronchiolitis | 2011 promotion nominator long gone |
35,986 | Needs checking | Endometrial cancer | 2014 promotion User:Keilana |
27,411 | Needs review | Hepatorenal syndrome | 2009 promotion User:Samir |
327,736 | Defeatured | Huntington's disease | Defeatured July 2020, 2009 promotion nominator long gone |
1,198,247 | Needs review | Influenza | 2006 promotion Tim Vickers |
124,610 | Needs review | Lung cancer | 2007 promotion User:Axl |
246,437 | Needs checking | Major depressive disorder | 2008 promotion check with User:Casliber |
3,992 | Needs review | Management of multiple sclerosis | 2007 promotion main contributor long gone |
287,700 | Needs review | Meningitis | 2009 promotion User:Jfdwolff |
435,231 | Out of compliance | Multiple sclerosis | 2005 promotion, main contributor long gone User:Wouterstomp might help |
16,180 | Needs review | Osteochondritis dissecans | 2009 promotion nominator long gone |
60,340 | Needs checking | Oxygen toxicity | 2009 promotion, check with User:RexxS |
161,500 | Needs checking | Pancreatic cancer | 2015 promotion, check with User:Johnbod |
427,504 | Out of compliance | Parkinson's disease | 2011 promotion nominator long gone |
613,002 | Needs review | Polio | 2007 promotion nominator long gone |
20,577 | Needs review | Pulmonary contusion | 2008 promotion User:Delldot |
169,934 | Needs checking | Rhabdomyolysis | 2011 promotion User:Jfdwolff |
466,012 | 2020 Overhaul | Schizophrenia | 2020 Overhaul Casliber |
78,035 | Needs checking | Subarachnoid hemorrhage | 2008 promotion, User:Jfdwolff |
7,433 | Needs checking | Thyrotoxic periodic paralysis | 2011 promotion User:Jfdwolff |
335,270 | 2020 Overhaul | Tourette syndrome | Overhauled for March 2020 mainpage appearance, SandyGeorgia, Colin |
293,955 | Needs review per lead citation | Amphetamine | 2015 promotion User:Seppi333 |
254,903 | Needs checking | Bupropion | 2013 FAR |
118,211 | 2015 FAR | Cerebellum | 2015 FAR |
152,453 | Needs review | Genetics | 2008 promotion User:Mad Price Ball |
166,062 | Needs review | Helicobacter pylori | 2008 FAR. Lead is a mess, needs overall review |
144,345 | Needs review | Hippocampus | 2009 promotion, nominator gone |
296,913 | Needs review | Immune system | 2007 promotion nominator gone |
453,695 | 2020 Overhaul | Introduction to viruses | Overhauled in March 2020 for mainpage appearance, Graham Beards |
346,263 | Maintained by Colin | Ketogenic diet | 2009 promotion, maintained by Colin |
39,422 | Needs review | Linezolid | User:Fvasconcellos 2009 promotion |
1,525 | Needs review | Major urinary proteins | 2010 promotion nominator gone |
186,142 | Needs checking | Menstrual cycle | 2008 FAR |
158,247 | Needs review | Metabolism | 2007 promotion Tim Vickers |
115,648 | Maintained by Graham Beards | Rotavirus | Maintained by Graham Beards |
229,335 | Maintained by Graham Beards | Social history of viruses | Maintained by Graham Beards |
2,261,992 | Maintained by Graham Beards | Virus | Maintained by Graham Beards |
39,139 | Needs review | Water fluoridation | 2009 promotion, Eubulides long gone |
Well that's disappointing to see, though not surprising. I'd be happy to participate in a monthly focused update. Also happy to drive updates on any of the microbe-related articles (or even, painful as it might be, Tim's Metabolism article). Thanks for doing all the research here! Ajpolino ( talk) 03:04, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
2007-2011 was a golden age. Is this decline reflected in other Wikiprojects? Was that a Wikipedia peak or a WP:MED peak? -- Colin° Talk 20:31, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
What's wrong with amphetamine? In any event, if either that article or beta-hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid have issues that need to be addressed in the future, just ping me. I'll probably have more time for WP in 8-12 months from now. Please ping me in a reply. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 05:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Should we update MEDMOS first, and review the existing FAs afterwards? Or the other way around? Changing "the rules" in the middle of a review may be irritating. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 18:12, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Hey, all (or anyone interested) ... PainProf has begun work there, so I will also engage, but I think it's too much work for two of us to do alone. Are others interested? If so, let's please convene at Talk:Parkinson's disease; the FAR (at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Parkinson's disease/archive1) gives an idea of the work needed, and there are numerous recent reviews mentioned on talk that haven't been accounted for or incorporated. Perhaps we can coordinate our "who is doing what" work; I am best for citation and MOS cleanup and overall watching out for things that are not FA-compliant. Others can help by updating old citations, reading the new reviews and using them to either update or incorporate new information, or just do all sorts of general stuff, like prose cleanup, suggestions on talk for work needed, etc.
One note: for decades, we at WPMED have ignored a common requirement for verifiability with respect to page numbers (or section headings or chapters at least) being needed on lengthy sources like books, PDFs, or very long journal articles; see dementia with Lewy bodies#References, complete blood count#References and Buruli ulcer#references. I am not sure why we thought we didn't have to meet WP:V just the way every other content area did, but that was our standard. As you are adding new information, or verifying old information, please add a page number or section heading from the source. When we are done, I will convert the entire article, if the star is saved (not gonna do the work if we don't save the star, as it will take days). You can do that by adding an inline hidden comment, or by (temporarily) using the Template:Rp as Spicy had done in the older versions of complete blood count. That will leave us temporarily with inconsistent citations, which is a breach of WP:WIAFA, but the idea is that I will fix them all before the FAR closes. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:37, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
If you read more than a few of our drug articles, you tend to find the same two factoids appearing in the lead, and only in the lead, citing primary sources. As such, their sources don't themselves indicate that they have WP:WEIGHT to be mentioned in the article, never mind have prominence in the lead:
References
But WP:WEIGHT requires us to examine what the body of secondary literature considers important and to bear in that mind wrt the proportion and prominence given to a fact or claim. Does the secondary literature generally mention both these facts? And if so, do they give it such importance that they can't wait to mention it within the body text rather than the first few paragraphs or even page one?
The presence of a drug on the WHO Model List of Essential Medicines is clearly important on that list article, but is the inverse true for all the hundreds of drugs on the list? I'm aware that the text in many articles used to boldly claim ", the safest and most effective medicines needed in a health system", which is being removed already from many. It was an over-simplification of the properties of the list, which is complicated by being split into core and complementary lists, a factor that none of our article mention. This seems more a feature of building and supplying a healthcare system with a range of medicines to treat common conditions, than it does a feature of the drug itself. It doesn't confer magical properties upon the drug (for example, there is no obligation on manufacturers to make generic forms widely and cheaply available, and in reality many drugs on the list are not widely and cheaply available). So I wonder if a drug's presence on the list matters to WHO, healthcare charities and some government healthcare systems, but not so much otherwise. What does the body of secondary literature say when discussing each drug? Does this get a mention?
Similarly, we have the factoids about the sales rank in the US in 2017 and often a count of prescriptions in the US. What our text neglects to mention is that these figures are an estimate based on an annual survey: they aren't actual sales figures or counts of prescriptions, but figures extrapolated from polling. Again, what does the body of secondary literature say when discussing each drug? Does this get a mention? Thoughts? -- Colin° Talk 15:32, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
In answering some queries for Memdmarti on estogen-related articles, I have found another issue—dosage relative to WP:NOT and WP:MEDMOS. There are multiple templates causing a problem because they are used in multiple articles in collapsed form: text is not supposed to be hidden in articles ( MOS:DONTHIDE), so that needs fixing, but it is also unclear to me whether these templates should be used as they are at all (NOTADVICE).
See a sample list of many of them at Template:Estrogen dosages for breast cancer.
Then see a sample of how they are being used here—in collapsed form (DONTHIDE, and should not really be centered), and because the whole templates are included in multiple articles, their use in many articles may be UNDUE as well as off-topic to specific articles. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:47, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Could those knowledgeable have a look (renal)? This article is created by Anders Grubb and extensively cites ... Anders Grubb. There are two reviews by ... Anders Grubb.
[5] It appears to be advancing some of the author's hypotheses, and additionally needs some style and writing cleanup. There are numerous reviews available, and I suspect the article could be written in a way that would comply with secondary sourcing, if someone has the time. On the surface, the situation appears similar to
Ian Brockington and
menstrual psychosis; if this is a recognized condition, so far only Grubb and colleagues seem to be publishing about it. I have gone through and identified the primary sources and reviews, but many of the reviews cited have nothing to do with shrunken pore syndrome, so there seems to be a lot of synthesis, and I am unsure how much to outright delete.
Related at Cystatin C. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:36, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
References
What do we know about this journal, that published a copyvio of dementia with Lewy bodies?
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:50, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
@ Headbomb: within the links above are multiple journals that could be added to your non-reliable script, at minimum these. @ Ceoil, Colin, Outriggr, Seppi333, and Casliber: who were also plagiarized at DLB, along with Jytdog, Tryptofish, Doc James and Yomangani. Adrian J. Hunter, WhatamIdoing, and others edited later I think, as we were prepping for FAC in 2020. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:13, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
The stuff I wrote in the amphetamine article was extensively plagiarized a while back by some Omics journal (see the notice box on its talk page). If you want a copy of my demand letter, which the journal immediately actioned/forwarded to the authors and sorted out within a week, then LMK. Ping me again though because I’m stupidly busy off-wiki. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 20:34, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Started gathering info and questions at User:SandyGeorgia/AlainFymat SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:34, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
(Just catching up after a walking holiday) This reminds me a bit of a similar fraud over photos at Commons Featured Pictures. (Sadly, it can happen the other way round too: we recently had an account on Commons who won lots of featured pictures and then we discovered they had stolen, not taken, all of them). I think the steps at the Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks#Non-compliance process look good advice. Unlike pictures, it is rather more work to explain the copyvio, so I suggest to keep the letter short, with any tedious explanation of the violations as an appendix. There are key phrases in these letters that must be used and are not optional, and important to state that it is "my" copyright that is being violated. I don't think there is any need to elaborate in the letter more than necessary -- they will have encountered this before and recognise the key phrases mean that the cogs are turning on a fixed legal process. See also Wikipedia:Standard license violation letter.
For what it is worth, I think tackling such extensive violation of several important topics is important mainly because if we don't then the copyright may come back round to bit us: some journal will claim our article stole their material. As far as "Someone is being an asshole on the internet" goes, my strong advice is generally to ignore it. -- Colin° Talk 10:20, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
My first drafts of letters are at User:SandyGeorgia/AlainFymat#Letters; if I have to escalate beyond that, the letters will come from an attorney instead of me. Feedback appreciated at User talk:SandyGeorgia/AlainFymat#Letters. Regards, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:33, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
More found, so one to watch for in predatory journal topics in neurology and cancer; see Talk:Dementia with Lewy bodies/Alain L. Fymat. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 05:28, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
This week’s Signpost ... mentions ... Wikipedia, The Free Online Medical Encyclopedia Anyone Can Plagiarize: Time to Address Wiki-Plagiarism. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:36, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Look at this; the first thing en.Wikipedia readers encounter is a link taking them off en.Wikipedia, to an old version. A project external to en.Wikipedia as the first thing encountered by our readers, and a dated "peer review" (meaning a few Wikipedians looked at it), while Wikipedia is dynamic, not static, and articles change.
The same external project template was found inappropriately used on multiple medical articles, including Featured articles ( Cerebellum, Hippocampus and many more medical articles), where it was listed as a reference (which it is not). The external articles also breach WP:ELNO- does not include info that would be needed if the article were an FA -- so do not belong in external links. And they become dated as the articles evolve.
This is an example of misplaced priorities affecting en.Wikipedia medical content-- that is, rather than improving content on en.Wikipedia, content is improved off-en.WIkipedia and then en.Wikipedia readers are directed elsewhere. This template belongs on talk, and I have moved most of the medical ones there, although I have missed some. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:58, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
maybe it should be deletedcomment would link to a rational for deletion. If this was good faith error, here is a link to the previous deletion discussion for reference. If not, the link can sound like nominating template deletion as a retaliation for edit reversion. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo) talk 11:45, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
The licenses Wikipedia uses grant free access to our content in the same sense that free software is licensed freely. Wikipedia content can be copied, modified, and redistributed if and only if the copied version is made available on the same terms to others and acknowledgment of the authors of the Wikipedia article used is included (a link back to the article is generally thought to satisfy the attribution requirement; see below for more details).SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:40, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
This does not belong in an article indeed, please remove them, or maybe move them to talk. It looks like advertising. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 17:56, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
rather than improving content on en.Wikipedia, content is improved off-en.WIkipedia and then en.Wikipedia readers are directed elsewhere.I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding of what has happened. The content is created or improved off-Wikipedia and then imported into Wikipedia. The off-Wikipedia content is static, whereas the on-Wikipedia content can continued to be improved. {{ Academic peer reviewed}} is only to provide attribution and is similar in purpose to {{ NLM content}} and similar templates. Hence I think it is appropriate to include this template at the bottom of the page. Boghog ( talk) 18:10, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
And we have multiple cases working the other directionThat may be true in other cases, but certainly not true in this case. The PLOS Computational Biology article was published on 28 May 2015 and the Wikipedia article was created on 13 June 2015. That also applies to all other articles that use this template.
Back to the template. A search only shows 41 articles using it, along with 15 talk pages. If the consensus is for it to only be placed on talk pages, I can modify the template to only display on talk pages and give a message in preview if placed on an article page to avoid future problems. It wouldn't take many minutes to move all of the present 41 uses from article to talk. Can we try to find a consensus on that single issue first? -- RexxS ( talk) 21:21, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Apologies for being late to this thread, so I've responded to a few different items together and tried to semi-structure it and include relevant links where possible.
Usage scenarios These templates are used in a couple of scenarios and by multiple different journals ( category):
For a bit of the historical background, there's a rough timeline on slide 10 of this presentation (video link in description).
Template aims In my opinion, the template aims to achieve a few goals which sometimes overlap:
Template location I would broadly suggest that templates in articles are for readers and those on talkpages are for editors, since the majority of readers don't use (often unaware of) talkpages. That's why I've thought that it would be valuable to represent the information on the article page. TBH, I'd actually support having FAs more clearly marked on the article page, since users commonly don't realise the significance of the top icon star. I agree that the template shouldn't be at the top of the article page though. I would have thought that placing it underneath the main page navboxes is also going to far in the opposite direction. The reason that I have thought placing in the references section is logical is that it relates to sourcing and information provenance. The location of similar templates is often inconsistent ( example at top of refs; example in own sources subsection).
Template formatting & content I'd originally reformatted it from plain text to something similar to {{
Confusing}}
or {{
Missing_information}}
to try and be more consistent in style. If formatted to something more in the style of {{
CC-notice}}
that is fine by me, though noting again that the template is trying to fill several goals. The limitation of using a sister project only template is that many instances do not draw from a wikijournal user group journal, but instead from a PLOS journal or other publishers (for example
doi:10.15347/wjs/2019.006 versus
doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1008320). Two things the template currently lacks: Mentioning the specific license being used in the attribution, and whether it's
J2W or
W2J. I think the citation does need to be indicated somewhere, as it would seem odd to have e.g.
TIM_barrel or
Pfemp_1 include sources for the images but not the text. Since people seem to be happy with the formatting of the
copy of the template in talkspace, below are suggestions for how the copy of the template could behave in mainspace (suggested location top of references section, bottom of references section as a fallback option):
I think including the year is useful so that people know how much the wikipedia page is likely to have evolved since then. I'm aiming to better encode whether the article is W2J or J2W in wikidata ( example) to automate the template's display.
Other items I'd contest that One knows not how these peer reviewers are chosen
and dubious peer reviews at best
. The peer reviewer comments are actually published openly as are the editor instructions (links for
WJ and
PLOS), and guidelines for reviewers (links for
WJ and
PLOS). This is actually more transparent than many other academic journals (where peer reviews are typically hidden and reviewer guidelines are rarely open). Indeed the PLOS Comp Bio open peer reviews were some of the earliest to be open for that journal.
I'd contest that This external project (and others) are porting full articles back and forth without proper licensing and attribution
. Whenever articles are ported out of WP by the projects that use {{
Academic peer reviewed}}, the page includes:
I hope that this at least shows good faith efforts to get the licensing correctly organised even when sometimes there are gaps!
I'd contest the serving no purpose other than draining resources from Wikipedia
comment. I really wouldn't characterise it as that. I actually think that the projects involved have been very useful in drawing significant content and input from many people who would otherwise not have contributed, as authors editors and peer reviewers. Both the
J2W and
W2J models of collaboration are not in competition with WP, but rather deliberately trying to be on tool in the toolbox for bridging the academia-wikipedia gap and getting in outside contribution.
I realise that over the last hours a few templates have been moved so the placement is now pretty inconsistent, but can I also suggest gaining input from other groups? It affects a few other wikiprojects ( category), whose users may not commonly view WT:MED. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo) talk 11:45, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
{{
OA-attribution}}
.This article was
adapted from
Matt Ravenhall; Nives Škunca; Florent Lassalle;
Christophe Dessimoz (May 2015).
"Inferring horizontal gene transfer".
PLOS Computational Biology. 11 (5): e1004095.
doi:
10.1371/JOURNAL.PCBI.1004095.
ISSN
1553-734X.
PMC
4462595.
PMID
26020646.
Wikidata
Q21045419.{{
cite journal}} : CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link) after
peer review (
reviewer reports) under a
CC BY 4.0 license (
2015). |
This article was
submitted to WikiJournal of Science for external
peer review in 6 February 2019 (
reviewer reports). It was published as
Ignacio L. B. Munguira; et al. (17 August 2019).
"Lysenin" (PDF). WikiJournal of Science. 2 (1): 6.
doi:
10.15347/WJS/2019.006.
ISSN
2470-6345.
Wikidata
Q76846397.{{
cite journal}} : CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
and the updated content was reintegrated into the Wikipedia page under a
CC BY-SA-3.0 license (
2019). |
This article was
adapted from
Matt Ravenhall; Nives Škunca; Florent Lassalle;
Christophe Dessimoz (May 2015).
"Inferring horizontal gene transfer".
PLOS Computational Biology. 11 (5): e1004095.
doi:
10.1371/JOURNAL.PCBI.1004095.
ISSN
1553-734X.
PMC
4462595.
PMID
26020646.
Wikidata
Q21045419.{{
cite journal}} : CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link) after
peer review (
reviewer reports) under a
CC BY 4.0 license (
2015). |
This article was
submitted to WikiJournal of Science for external
peer review in 6 February 2019 (
reviewer reports). It was published as
Ignacio L. B. Munguira; et al. (17 August 2019).
"Lysenin" (PDF). WikiJournal of Science. 2 (1): 6.
doi:
10.15347/WJS/2019.006.
ISSN
2470-6345.
Wikidata
Q76846397.{{
cite journal}} : CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
and the updated content was reintegrated into the Wikipedia page under a
CC BY-SA-3.0 license (
2019). |
{{
OA-attribution}}
templates are mainly at the base of references section (though usually when there are small number of refs;
example), the top of the refs (
example) or in a separate notes/sources section (
example) and sometimes inline (
example). I think that top of references is reasonable given that the content. Especiially since the majority of text is coming from that . Similar templates include: {{
PlanetMath attribution}}
either below refs (
example), below ext links (
example) or in sources (
example); {{
CC-notice}}
in attributions (
example) end of refs (
example) or inline (
example);{{
InterPro content}}
placed top of refs (
example) or bottom of refs (
example) or further reading (
example); {{
CCBYSASource}}
bottom of refs (
example) or below ext links (
example); {{
NSW-SHR-CC}}
placed in attributions (
example). The talkpage copy of the template could be adapted for articles in review to invite further feedback and contribution (
example), or those for declined (
example). I hope I've managed to satisfy your main concerns.
T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)
talk 06:25, 15 August 2020 (UTC)This is very good progress, sorting what basically amounts to a standard attribution template from what is the sorta/kinda equivalent of a Wikipedia:WikiProject template used on talk, or media recognition, etc. That you have also sorted the here to there, there to here issue is grand. But I submit that we aren't there yet. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:36, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
In other words, the long and short here is that these templates still aren't looking, feeling and acting like most templates on English Wikipedia, or giving either the reader or editor the most useful and helpful info. They are instead taking up a lot of real estate with lots of flashing lights that would make good advertising on a freeway billboard. It would be good to take into consideration that this "sister" project is no more of less than any other thing (ITN, OTD, FAC, WikiProject, DYK, etc) linked on talk, and trying to be more in line with everyone else would be nice; that would lend a better impression that this "sister" project is working to advance Wikipedia, rather than itself. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:48, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
{{
OA-attribution}}
and {{
NSW-SHR-CC}}
since it's attribing the source as a starting point for further evolution on WP. The talkpage version now uses {{
tmbox}}
and I've tried to minimise vertical space taken as far as possible (takes up 2 lines on my screen) whilst including more useful detail for editors. The main functional change is that where QID was previously optional, it's now required and all info is drawn from wikidata. The inclusion of QIDs is part of the {{
Cite_Q}}
template, which is somewhat linked to the broader
wikicite project to improve open citation information. I think the dengue issue was because it'd been because it didn't have the QID in the template. I've now fixed that. I'll get to work on ensuring all the wikidata is up to date with additional parameters.
Evolution and evolvability 07:48, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7286212/
Generally RT-PCR test is a gold standard for confirmation of Covid-19. But in some times if RT-PCR not available , why dont we take the D-Dimer values for Confirmation Covid-19? Fever, Cough and high levers of D-Dimer may gives a clue to physician to suspect Covid-19
( KJRMOR ( talk) 15:06, 23 August 2020 (UTC)) ( KJRMOR ( talk) 15:18, 23 August 2020 (UTC))
Hello, recently I created and moved injector pen to mainspace, fully well knowing that insulin pen and pen needles already exist. My thought process was that there quite honestly isn't much usable information in those two articles (one has zero references at all), and so I figured I'd start from scratch and make the article about the general device itself (as opposed to just being used for insulin). How would I go about redirecting the two articles and/or adding any useful information to injector pen, if that's in fact okay to do? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 22:06, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Discussion on renaming. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 10:42, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
The Favipiravir article contains a lot of COVID-related claims with inadequate sourcing, expert review needed. Thank you. It might also be worth keeping an eye on Alpha defensin. HLHJ ( talk) 05:26, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
We are requesting review of /info/en/?search=Draft:Expertscape, as many of the experts that are profiled often list and refer to the website in their pages.
Expertscape is a more data-driven (and more objective) alternative to /info/en/?search=U.S._News_%26_World_Report_Best_Hospitals_Rankings, as our expert directory is driven entirely by the data in /info/en/?search=PubMed. We recognize that there are limitations to using only publications, which we recognize here https://expertscape.com/help/gen_limitations, but it has proven to be an excellent objective resource for patients and referring physicians. (And it is evidently used extensively for grant applications and other recognition.)
Any advice or assistance would be appreciated.
Brendan B4chex11 ( talk) 14:59, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
This is incredibly helpful, and we can certainly do that homework. Thank you.
B4chex11 ( talk) 15:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Speaking as an academic with experience in published peer reviewed papers. If you only cite systematic reviews and meta analysis then many of your entries will be outdated. For a proper meta analysis most physicians academics would look for a subject where there are 2-3 randomised trials with somewhat contradicting results. Otherwise, if all of the randomised trials are of similar outcomes they risk not reporting anything new (more of the same). In certain fields you simply will not have 2-3 randomised trials and therefore will often not have a meta analysis or systematic review. Therefore, this guideline is handicapping you in way and leading to a situation where many of your medical entries (at least in ophthalmology) are severely outdated (>5 years) and irrelevant. Today I made changes in 9-10 entries (my first...) all of which were evidence based and Would be considered obvious/basic knowledge for many Ophthalmologists but all entries were reverted because I cited original articles (not reviews). Very discouraging. Highqualitycontent ( talk) 21:50, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
You make valid points. I am saying that in cases where there are no systemic reviews or meta analysis the next best thing should be allowed (a randomised controlled trial). By the way citing the success and relevance of Wikipedia now does not mean it will survive in 10 years if it’s criteria for evidence based medicine are faulted. Highqualitycontent ( talk) 23:21, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for readding the entry. I believe that in all the content I contributed I wrote in a careful manner. For instance you will see that I used phrasing such as “reported risk factors include....”. I think that the average joe wants to know what risk factors they may have before an ophthalmic procedure. Rarely would a systematic review or meta analysis or even a randomised controlled trial answer a question like that. Large epidemiological studies with huge number of patients (eyes) are the only ones that could possibly address questions like that and they are always retrospective. One of the entries (before my contribution) mentioned one risk factor without even citing any studies. All I did was add additional reported risk factors and cite literature.... I appreciate your willingness to see the points I’m trying to make. By the way, I wrote these entries for an average Joe not a PhD or MD. Highqualitycontent ( talk) 23:39, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind words. It actually means a lot considering that my entire life has been about evidence based medicine and when I see medical statements that are not backed by citations considered “kosher” but medical statements that are backed by papers published in leading journals (in my field) getting removed (forgive me) by non professionals (in my field) it is very frustrating. Highqualitycontent ( talk) 01:13, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
I hear your comments and raise ;). Please look at the entry where all of my changes were reverted: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LASIK
It is plagued with primary studies. An overwhelming majority. If you have decided to have a certain guideline that you claim you do then why are all of these references kept and the ones I suggested removed? Highqualitycontent ( talk) 11:23, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
{{Better source|date=August 2020}}
or specifically for primary sources, {{Primary source inline|date=August 2020}}
. Just add those codes right after the ref tags for the weak source.
WhatamIdoing (
talk) 15:01, 25 August 2020 (UTC)I really appreciate the input and discussion with everyone. I am an ophthalmologist and no doubt that if you put five doctors in a room you get 10 opinions. To make things even more complicated each physician has their own “interpretation” even of systematic reviews. For instance you can cite something written in the introduction of a systematic review (something that the paper did not even look into). Regarding the amblyopia article, great point, it is preliminary and therefore perhaps add that further studies are needed to confirm this treatment (or that it is debatable). Regarding LASIK I put in a bunch of more information about potential complications (which would actually make patients think twice before surgery). Which goes against my interest as a LASIK surgeon. I am happy to try to revamp the article and give tertiary references whenever possible but for some info that won’t be possible. I do think that very large studies with large amount of eyes should be considered legit,as long as words such as “may” or “can” etc... are used. Thoughts? Highqualitycontent ( talk) 16:50, 25 August 2020 (UTC)