Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Collaboration of the Month/Successful nominations

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2021

[edit]

Cirrhosis

[edit]

The slow and sad breakdown of the liver. This article wins the award for most bullet points I've ever seen. It's an interesting and much-written-about topic. It's also quite viewed by our readers, with 3648 views/day across 2019. Ajpolino (talk) 01:43, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Spyder212 (talk) 00:57, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. WS (talk) 19:59, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

2020

[edit]

Tonsillitis

[edit]
Nominated at 13:45, 29 October 2020 (UTC).

Daily average page views for 2019 were 3,124, B-class, high importance, listy, cleanup needs, student editing

Support

  1. Graham Beards (talk) 13:54, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. B-class with high page views, high importance, needs to have student editing addressed-- I slightly prefer this over dexamethasone. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:27, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:07, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

 Done Tonsillitis is up first! Updating current template and will post at WT:MED momentarily. Ajpolino (talk) 21:14, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dexamethasone

[edit]

A page whose views jumped this year from about 50k/month to 80k/month (I wonder why...). A widely used anti-inflammatory, this article need only mention covid peripherally. It's peppered with "medical cite needed" tags and single-sentence paragraphs. Could use some TLC. For the sake of comparison to the above, 1973 views/day in 2019.

Support

  1. Ajpolino (talk) 15:18, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. B-class with high page views, but mid-importance, slightly prefer tonsillitis over this, but either works! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:49, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments  Done Dexamethasone is up next. Updated template and posted at WT:MED! Ajpolino (talk) 00:52, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-2015 nominations

[edit]

Human physiology

[edit]
Nominated on 14:16, 26 July 2005 (UTC); needs 2 votes by 2nd August.

A critical introductory topic which is the gateway to all sorts of medical subtopics. Is currently a one sentece stub, which is ridiculous considering its importance.

Support

  1. PhatRita 14:16, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Arcadian 16:51, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Knowledge Seeker দ 20:26, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Comments

Don't support. Just do it. I started it. Make it better. alteripse 23:12, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Asthma

[edit]
Nominated on 23:21, July 26, 2005 (UTC); if not selected by 16 August 2005, needs 6 votes to remain in consideration.

Such a common disease should be written up to featured article status.

Support

  1. Alex.tan 23:21, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Fuzheado | Talk 01:47, 27 July 2005 (UTC) - needs more illustrations[reply]
  3. Mr.Bip 04:14, 30 July 2005 (UTC) - the "mechanisms" section needs to be de-jargonized and links need to be added. Also, I think that the article relies too heavily on lists rather than normal paragraph-style writing.[reply]
  4. WS 00:06, 31 July 2005 (UTC) - Would be great if it could get to featured article status.[reply]
  5. --Zxcvbnm 15:45, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • I have no experience in helping articles to gain featured status, and I'm not certain I can help this article much, which is why I haven't supported it. But I hope we can do it—perhaps someone familiar with the process can offer us some guidance. — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:31, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Pneumonia

[edit]
Nominated on 00:05, August 4, 2005 (UTC); if not selected by September 1, 2005, needs 8 votes to remain in consideration.

Another common disease that needs CoW TLC

Support

  1. Alex.tan 00:05, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  2. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 21:15, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Mr.Bip 18:27, 5 August 2005 (UTC) - could use an image. Any one have a chest x-ray of a pneumonia sufferer?[reply]
  4. Knowledge Seeker 01:48, August 6, 2005 (UTC) — the bread and butter of internal medicine
  5. David Ruben 13:05, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. →Encephalon | Ϟ | ζ 07:30:10, 2005-08-07 (UTC)
  7. Kpjas 11:31, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Carcinogenesis

[edit]
Nominated on 17:48, 8 August 2005 (UTC); if not selected by 5 September 2005, needs 8 votes to remain in consideration.

Currently a one sentence stub. The brief overview of this process in Cancer is OK, but it lacks any detail and is somewhat confusing.

Support

  1. Mr.Bip 17:48, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Unbelievable this is so shoddy. JFW | T@lk 20:00, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Incredible — Knowledge Seeker দ 23:32, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
  4. PhatRita 19:57, 11 August 2005 (UTC) - very shoddy indeed[reply]
  5. Encephalon | ζ | Σ 15:27:48, 2005-08-13 (UTC)
  6. WS 15:59, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 06:17, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments An one sentence stub as one of the top search results on google, only possible on wikipedia :-)

As a start I have copy/pasted the info from cancer to this article. Still it can be improved a lot. --WS 16:08, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The copy-paste material from cancer could use some work, too.... TenOfAllTrades(talk) 06:17, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rheumatoid arthritis

[edit]
Nominated on 03:38:49, 2005-08-14 (UTC); if not selected by September 4, 2005, needs 6 votes to remain in consideration.

Extremely common and important disease. Article starts off with reasonable section on diagnosis, pathophys. After that, essentially a series of lists. Ends with History "to be written." No images. Maybe we can work on this to make it FA level?

Support

  1. Encephalon | ζ | Σ 03:38:49, 2005-08-14 (UTC)
  2. Mr.Bip 06:56, 15 August 2005 (UTC) - definitely should be FA quality.[reply]
  3. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:07, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Alex.tan 06:26, August 18, 2005 (UTC) - yup, article could use some collaborative editing
  5. David Rubentalk 15:28, 20 August 2005 (UTC) - needs more than just pathology/therapeutics but also about how it affects patients, if it is to be a good encyclopedic vs medical textbook article and FA status. Hence will need to think about pain, mobility, disablement/incapacity, social isolation, and roles of occupational health & later social services etc etc. eg mention of magnetic bracelets (uggh - no evidence for them) because it reflects how patients try to cope with the illness and the NPOV just has to accept they are widely used.[reply]

Comments

Biochemistry

[edit]
Nominated on 18:18, 29 July 2005 (UTC); if not selected by August 26, 2005, needs 8 votes to remain in consideration.

This article is woefully behind other closely related articles, like Molecular Biology or DNA. There's such a rich history, too.

Support

  1. Mr.Bip 18:18, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:50, July 30, 2005 (UTC) This one's not as bad as Human physiology was, but such a basic topic should be more well covered.
  3. PhatRita 00:36, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Ombudsman 23:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Encephalon | Ϟ | ζ 07:30:10, 2005-08-07 (UTC)
  6. --Arcadian 12:58, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • So, this nomination is slated to be the next MCOTW, after carcinogenesis. I'm not sure if this is "allowed" - but can I request to have biochemistry's advancement to MCOTW postponed by a week? I ask because I want to make very significant contributions to this article, and I won't have access to my textbooks and most importantly, my college library until next week. I'd like to be able to make my contributions while the MCOTW is in effect so other people can add to what I will write. Any objections? Mr.Bip 07:09, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suppose that decisions concerning the running of MCOTW, where there aren't precedents in WP guidelines and policies, will be made by Seeker. FWIW, I think that since Bip is a recently graduated biochem major, his contributions will be valuable; I have no objections if, say, the next highest-scoring subject is dealt with this week and biochem the next(should it still have the highest vote).—Encephalon | ζ  07:29:04, 2005-08-22 (UTC)
    • I would be fine with freezing Biochemistry and Rheumatoid arthritis as the next two winners and then inverting the order we work on them. The rules are there to help us work productively and efficiently, not to hamper us—which is why I added that little caveat about bending or breaking the rules at times. Of course, I don't own this project, and everyone's opinions should be considered. I don't anticipate this being too controversial but I'd be interested to hear any objections or concerns. — Knowledge Seeker দ 20:32, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
    • Agree, provided the others who supported this proposal are happy (someone helpfully indicating when they will be best able to contribute is laudable, but should not inconvenience others) David Rubentalk 20:30, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Medical record

[edit]
Nominated on 13:27:46, 2005-09-07 (UTC); if not selected by 28 September 2005, needs 4 votes to remain in consideration.

Article has THREE tags: "Cleanup" (since May 2005), "Requires Expert Attention," and "Intro lacks context". Bottom third consists of headings without any text. Contender for top 10 most embarrasing medical articles on WP. Good quick project that can be completed after MCOTW break.

Support

  1. encephalonέγκέφαλος  13:27:46, 2005-09-07 (UTC)
  2. Edwardian 18:08, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. David Ruben 02:40, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments The physical exam section reflects a bit of bias towards GPs. The medical record of an ophthalmologist or dentist would be quite different. Edwardian 18:08, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • re "bias towards GPs" - good ! Over half of UK doctors work as GPs and patients are more likely be seen by a GP more consistantly and over more decades than any specialist. Also, in the UK, all GP surgeries now are computerised (the medical records are almost all switched over from written records these days) which is about 10 years ahead of virtualy all hospitals  :-) Having said that, most computer records deal well with diagnostic codes & examination findings, less well with description of symptoms, fail miserably with the quick diagrams we all used to draw (picture=1000 words) and are quite hopeless with negative findings (whilst meningism or photophobia will have their codes, absence of stiff neck has no code and must be entered as free-text). Whilst I agree each speciality will modify the precise information recorded in the medical record, the basic structure is the same (history, examination, diagnosis etc) and this article should not be an indepth account of the precise questions & examination each speciality performs. The difference between community GP notes and specialist hospital notes needs be mentioned but not orthopaedic vs cardiology or GP vs Practice Nurse. David Rubentalk 02:40, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple sclerosis

[edit]
Nominated on 11:52, 8 September 2005 (UTC); if not selected by 29 September 2005, needs 4 votes to remain in consideration.

Already a former FAC, this article could easily be converted in a featured article. See its FAC page here.


Support

  1. WS 11:52, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Absolutely.—encephalonέγκέφαλος  12:16:23, 2005-09-08 (UTC)
  3. PhatRita 10:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC) - back at uni, so may be a bit short of time to add a lot[reply]

Comments

Pneumonia

[edit]
Nominated on 06:14, August 31, 2005 (UTC); if not selected by September 28, 2005, needs 6 votes to remain in consideration.

As User:Encephalon mentioned on Talk:Asthma, I think I caused our efforts to be spread thin by nominating Asthma for WP:FAC. User:Wouterstomp did a great job, and I'm sorry that I didn't help at all. I think Pneumonia should be a featured article as well, but I don't want to take time away from other collaboration efforts, so I figured I would renominate it. Here's what I'm thinking: I'll nominate it for peer review now, and work on responding to any suggestions. If it does get selected here, we can work on it for a couple days more, then maybe nominate it for FAC on Friday or something? We could then spend the rest of the week responding to suggestions and criticisms. If this is a terrible idea, leave a comment here and I won't do it again.

Support

  1. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:14, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
  2. —Encephalon | ζ  07:19:00, 2005-08-31 (UTC)
  3. Mr.Bip 15:02, 5 September 2005 (UTC) - I'll be happy to help out with the polishing process, though I didn't help to write the article.[reply]
  4. --WS 23:02, 6 September 2005 (UTC) , don't really like to have an article as MCOTW more than once, but would be a nice FAC.[reply]
  5. David Ruben 02:19, 18 September 2005 (UTC), seems good way to have a rest from pace of other articles and go for the final push to FAC. If selected, should simultaneously tag for peer-review etc to get maximum non-medical general WP commentary for us to work off.[reply]
  6. Spawn Man 05:09, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • No, it's not a terrible idea at all. But I do wonder if we don't have the manpower to keep this pace, guys. A new article has already been selected, and I didn't get to touch RA; carcinogenesis is a distant memory. WS has been doing yeoman work on RA, but he's been alone, IIRC. I hope to complete a new section on alternative medicine in asthma, improve the clinical manifestations part, rewrite the refs with both new and old ones, and add some data about smoking to the asthma article shortly. I'm also in the midst of sorting through the Pneumonia refs, which are at present something of a, um, disaster :). The DDx and complications sections could use work, too. Putting Asthma on WP:FAC was good, and MCOTW is very successful, but I wonder if we need to rethink the pace of what we're doing. It absolutely makes sense to FAC the articles we work on, I'm just wondering if we can think of a mechanism to stop MCOTW work in those weeks when we have a FAC candidate, at least until we have enough manpower that we can maybe think of "delegating" work?—Encephalon | ζ  07:19:00, 2005-08-31 (UTC)
    • I'm slightly confused. I was hoping this could be such a mechanism: if Pneumonia is selected, we can run the FAC process during that week, and we won't have any other MCOTW business during that week to distract us. Or are you referring to any time that a medical article is on FAC? We could certainly suspend MCOTW for a week, extending all expiry times by one week, but we'd need some way to agree to do it for a particular nomination—I wouldn't want to be responsible for unilaterally suspending and restarting MCOTW. I agree that this pace might be a bit too fast, though. Perhaps we should go back to fortnightly work? Or maybe suspend MCOTW the first week of each month? — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:32, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
      • Sorry, KS, maybe I didn't write that properly. You're right about this being a mechanism for this week. We could FAC pneumonia this weekend. I guess what I'm saying is we've got one (the big) part of MCOTW right: setting up articles to work on and doing the heavy lifting during its MCOTW. Then we move to the next, and all fine-tuning and responding to FAC criticism takes place while other MCOTWs are ongoing. For me this has meant not contributing to some MCOTWs (of course this is partly because I also choose to do other work on WP, like VfD, RC patrol, RFA, and helping out the guys on cerebellum, for example). I was just wondering if we could set up a mechanism so that during an article's FAC, everyone involved in the project can chip in. However, on second thought this may not be such a good idea: MCOTF may be too slow/dispersed to drum up enthusiasm. Maybe we should see how this goes for a bit longer?—Encephalon | ζ  08:05:03, 2005-08-31 (UTC)
        • I tend agree topic a week was quite a fast turn over, so the 1 week a month off seems good idea. However, as per thoughts above, the aim of MCOTW is to improve a medical topic to a decent and fuller article, its sumission then for peer review/FAC is separate from this process and has no fixed time limits (as far as I am aware). Peer review/FAC allows those with specialist interest to work further on an article and for non-medical WPs to get involved and comment on the style, language etc. The two are complimentary surely ? As for Pneumonia, it has been quite heavily edited recently by several people, so it really needs a push for FAC, rather than initial MCOTW work-up. Placing it as MCOTW though will give us all time to concentrate on this article that is so nearly at FAC status. David Rubentalk 02:19, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Prostate cancer

[edit]
Nominated on 10:25, 30 October 2005 (UTC); if not selected by November 20, 2005, needs 4 votes to remain in consideration.

Already a large article, but the original article text was taken from a public domain NIH publication. It is currently very US centric, it should be globalized and needs a lot of cleaning-up.

Support

  1. WS 10:25, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. JFW | T@lk 01:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:16, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. InvictaHOG 15:00, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Rewster 04:04, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Are there any well-done cancer pages out there to compare to? I went through several different ones and couldn't find any that were spectacular. At least with prostate we don't have to worry about all the different histologies. The screening, however, will be a mess no matter what. InvictaHOG 02:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Breast cancer is not bad I think (not spectacular either though, but one must be the first...). Why do you think screening will be a mess? --WS 15:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I say we go for prostate cancer next --InvictaHOG 02:15, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Atrial fibrillation

[edit]
Nominated on 03:23, 20 October 2005 (UTC); if not selected by November 17, 2005, needs 4 votes to remain in consideration.

A common illness with a great start. Good candidate for featured article

Support

  1. InvictaHOG 03:23, 20 October 2005 (UTC) I think that pneumonia will probably require a few more weeks, but when we get done I think that atrial fibrillation can be upgraded with references, etc. to make a fantastic article![reply]
  2. Rewster 17:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC) I agree.[reply]
  3. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:16, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. JFW | T@lk 20:22, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Cybergoth 03:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

AIDS

[edit]
Nominated on 00:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC); if not selected by 23 January 2006, needs 6 votes to remain in consideration.

There is a lot of information in this article, but there are still the denialists who keep changing it. Would like it to become a lot better, globalized and cleaned up. This would be a great candidate for a featured article for the 1 December 2005 (global AIDS day)

Support

  1. Bob 00:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Joewright 03:18, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Cybergoth 03:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. JFW | T@lk 01:37, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. InvictaHOG 09:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Wow, there's no information about the disease itself. Crazy. HIV is well done, though. InvictaHOG 01:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There is certainly much to be added. One question would be whether a page like "AIDS" is the appropriate way to do it, or whether the project should simply add more related main articles; the challenge will be how to add what I agree is needed depth to what is already a very long article. Also I think the goal of having it be ready on Dec 1 is a great idea. Joewright 03:18, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Reading through the talk pages, it would appear this is a quagmire. It has the personal attention of a high level administrator and still sucks. The denialists deserve a spot in the article and any changes that we make are likely to erode quite quickly. I say that our efforts are better served elsewhere, such as heart failure or prostate cancer or diabetes or cystic fibrosis or any number of less push-button issues. InvictaHOG 10:48, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The article has changed significantly over the past couple of days.--Bob 23:38, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cystic fibrosis

[edit]
Nominated at 10:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC); if not selected by 2 February 2006, needs 6 votes to remain in consideration.

Could easily be turned into a featured article.

Support

  1. WS 10:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. JFW | T@lk 12:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. TexasDex 19:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ImmortalGoddezz 19:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. InvictaHOG 03:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ENCEPHALON 01:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Popular example of a genetic disease. Details in every basic biology textbook. Samsara contrib talk 12:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. PhatRita 12:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC) - i'm sorry I've not been online for a long time now. The new term's workload is fast paced and overloading. I'd be happy to contribute by reading through the material and some minor editing. Just let me know what you guys need me to do by messaging me.[reply]

Comments

Medicine

[edit]
Nominated at 04:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC); if not selected by February 22, needs 2 votes to remain in consideration.

This is a core topic that would be included in a release version of Wikipedia (on paper or CD)

Support

  1. Maurreen 04:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. JFW | T@lk 13:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC) Contains a lot of content but is not systematic enough, needs more sources, and NPOV of the criticism section to adequately reflect criticism of medical practice through the centuries.[reply]
  3. CrnaGora (Talk | Contribs | E-mail) 05:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Medicine in Ancient Greece

[edit]
Nominated at 15:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC); if not selected by 12 May, needs 2 votes to remain in consideration.

In the history of medicine, the contributions done in Ancient Greece are very important and basic. It deserves a much better article

Support

  1. Francisco Valverde 15:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fxer 15:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Maestlin 19:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Osbus 21:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Aldux 22:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Museumfreak 01:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Blood types (or Blood groups)

[edit]
Nominated at 09:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC); if not selected by 3june2006, needs 2 votes to remain in consideration.

An essential basic topic - a candidate for the Wikipedia CD.
About 45 article pages link to the blood type artical page (excluding talk pages).

Support

  1. Snowman 09:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Museumfreak 01:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. NCurse work 18:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Cybergoth 02:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. InvictaHOG 03:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • I like what's already there. I think that there's a lot that would do well to be spun off summary style and as a list (the list of antibodies) with individual pages. I think it would be fun to make some images to illustrate things like the ABO group. I just ask that this waits until I return from vacation (August!) InvictaHOG 03:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aortic dissection

[edit]
Nominated at 16:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC); if not selected by 7 may 2006, needs 2 votes to remain in consideration.

German version of this article is featured and very good, could be used as a base for improving this article. Lots of great images on wikicommons.

Support

  1. WS 16:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. InvictaHOG 19:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. JFW | T@lk 22:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Will TALK 23:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Samir धर्म 09:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ackoz 14:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Huntington's disease

[edit]
Nominated at 13:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC); if not selected by 23 April 2006, needs 2 votes to remain in consideration.

A genetic dissorder at the forefront of testing, counseling and research that many other conditions will use as their basis as and when their exact genes are found. But doesn't conform completely to the medical style. This info is being used by a number of external sites. An opportunity to expand on the genetics linking to and from it as well?.

Support

  1. Leevanjackson 13:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. JFW | T@lk 22:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. NCurse 17:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Museumfreak 01:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Melanoma

[edit]
Nominated at 22:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC); if not selected by date in seven days, needs 2 votes to remain in consideration.

Melanoma is the commonest fatal skin condition. It often affects young adults who are likely users of this encyclopedia. The current article is a good start and there is real scope to get it up to peer review and featured article stages. There are some controversies in management which need to be adequately addressed. We have the skills to write it really well.

Support

  1. Will TALK 22:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Ming TALK 12 June 2006
  3. WS 14:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. JFW | T@lk 22:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. UK 08:37, 29 June 2006 (GMT)
  6. NCurse work 20:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. MIP | Talk 21:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cas Liber 03:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  1. I'm back! (somewhat) — Knowledge Seeker দ 10:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Agree on importance of article. It's one that really sticks out (but then, I am in Australia where there is alot of melanoma)Cas Liber 03:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hepatitis C

[edit]
Nominated at 19:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC); if not selected by 14 august 2006, needs 2 votes to remain in consideration.

Already a well written, well referenced article that has the potential to be a featured article after some editing.

Support

  1. WS 19:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Perfect choose... NCurse work 19:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kpjas 08:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. InvictaHOG 12:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Hemolytic disease of the newborn

[edit]
Nominated at 13:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC); if not selected by 27June06, needs 2 votes to remain in consideration.

HDN is not small print. It is part of modern antenatal care is to offer all RhD neg women anti-RhD IGg antibodies to prevent Rh disease. In addition, the history of the discoveries is fastinating. The pioneers received a Lasker Award.

Support

  1. Snowman 13:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. InvictaHOG 13:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. JFW | T@lk 22:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. NCurse work 20:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Islet cell transplantation

[edit]
Nominated at 21:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC); if not selected by 27 August 2006, needs 2 votes to remain in consideration.

Just started this article, very interesting topic with so far very little info on wikipedia.

Support

  1. WS 21:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. NCurse work 15:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kpjas 18:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Medical research

[edit]
Nominated at 22:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC); if not selected by 22 August 2006, needs 2 votes to remain in consideration.

This should be a well-developed, high level article on the topic. Unfortunately right now it has not been significantly developed. There's plenty of potential for sections on history and ethics.

Support

  1. RJH (talk) 22:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. WS 14:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Steven Fruitsmaak 10:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Stress (medicine)

[edit]
Nominated at 21:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC); if not selected by September 7, 2006, needs 2 votes to remain in consideration.

Core topic but enormous mess!

Support

  1. Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. NCurse work 12:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. It is a mess. Eyu100 23:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Food allergy

[edit]
Nominated at 08:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC).

An article that is probably accessed by many readers with concerns about reactions to food. It is in Gastroenterology and Immunology categories, and yet is in very poor shape as it duplicates or contradicts information on the Allergy article and needs thorough referencing.

Support

  1. apers0n 08:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. NCurse work 15:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Asbruckman 20:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. -Gphoto 21:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crohn's disease

[edit]
Nominated at 07:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC).

Nearly perfect article. With some collaboration, it could be featured.

Support

  1. NCurse work 07:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. WS 14:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kyoko 15:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Samir धर्म 22:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Myocardial infarction

[edit]
Nominated at 19:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC).

Already a well written article, could be improved to featured article standards. Lacks citations for most parts.

Support

  1. WS 19:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. NCurse work 07:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kyoko 15:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 00:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • I've been working on this one, making major revisions lately, but inline referencing is the biggest challenge. Could indeed be taken to featured! Come on, this is the leading cause of death worldwide and it's preventable, so knowledge about this is crucial, this should be our top priority article.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 00:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Malaria

[edit]
Nominated at 07:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC).

It's not too far from the featured article state.

Support

  1. NCurse work 07:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kyoko 15:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 00:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. WS 19:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Leevanjackson 02:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Sangak 20:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Polycystic kidney disease

[edit]
Nominated at 05:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC); if not selected by 4 December 2006, needs 8 votes to remain in consideration.

This is a very common genetic disorder with a high morbidity and cost. It's also pretty well understood, so there's definitely a great featured article waiting to be written about PKD.

Support

  1. Mr.Bip 05:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. InvictaHOG 19:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Derwig 13:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Markovich292 22:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Sangak 20:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. WS 21:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marfan syndrome

[edit]
Nominated at 21:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

An interesting topic, genetics known, complex pathology.

Support

  1. Snowman 21:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. NCurse work 07:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meningitis

[edit]
Nominated at 17:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Important diagnosis. Almost entirely unreferenced and much room for improvement.

Support

  1. WS 17:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Chussid 23:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iron deficiency (medicine)

[edit]
Nominated at 13:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC).

Common condition. This article and the article Iron deficiency anaemia need a tidy up. Recent advances in blood tests for iron deficiency.

Support

  1. Snowman 13:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Keesiewonder 13:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Hysterectomy

[edit]
Nominated at 06:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC).

Hysterectomy is a common surgical procedure. The current article is heavily biased against hysterectomy. It needs cleanup, reference checking, and information on the other side to balance it out. Please read the article's talk page before editing.

Support

  1. Dfeuer 06:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Rmky87 02:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blood pressure

[edit]
Nominated at 23:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

It is the 927th most viewed wiki page in February 2007 as listed on 9 Feb 2007. This very popular page needs a clean up.

Support

  1. Snowman 23:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. NCurse work 12:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Vitamin C

[edit]
Nominated at 05:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

important nutrient that's on it's way to FA status (hopefully)

Support

  1. Jack · talk · 05:55, Monday, 5 March 2007 05:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. YKgm 20:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)YKgm[reply]
  3. Petze petze 08:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oncogene

[edit]
Nominated at 06:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

It is unbelievably short and has only two references.

Support

  1. NCurse work 06:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Arcadian 12:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Axl 20:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sedmic 19:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. petze 14:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cancer

[edit]

Support

  1. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 06:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The article is far too long. It needs to be split into sub-articles.Axl 10:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. WS 21:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Lots of work to be done here. Una Smith 04:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Was at FAC, needs alot of references but otherwise alot of work done and may not be too far away from FAC again.cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 06:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transcription factor

[edit]
Nominated at 06:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It's still very short and contains a "confusing template" back from December of 2006.

Support

  1. NCurse work 06:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Boghog2 09:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC) I have recently revised the article to try to make it clearer (can the "confusing template" now be removed?). However more work is required, especially with regard to adding references.[reply]
  3. --Arcadian 12:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. petze 10:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Kyoko 12:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Meningitis

[edit]
Nominated at 22:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC).

Important disease not to miss. Should be featured.

Support

  1. WS 22:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. BsayUSD [Talk] [contribs] 01:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. JFW | T@lk 22:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Axl 19:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Diabetes mellitus

[edit]
Nominated at 10:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Support

  1. JFW | T@lk 10:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. WS 13:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Idleguy 16:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • This crucial article is in a reasonable state (it makes no dramatic claims or contains crufty Med Hypoth content) but is still disorganised and needs stronger referencing. Given the enormity of the subject, much content needs to be split off to subarticles, with only the most important content remaining on the main page. I am chipping away at this, but would prefer to improve it radically in a collaborative fashion. JFW | T@lk 10:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Malaria

[edit]
Nominated at 22:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC).

Recently a featured article candidate, but didn't make it. Needs more improvements.

Support

  1. WS 22:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. JFW | T@lk 22:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • All major worldwide killer diseases should go through MCOTW. Tuberculosis and AIDS are already FA, but many others still need the touch. JFW | T@lk 22:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allergy

[edit]
Nominated at 06:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC).

Support

  1. JFW | T@lk 06:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Tekaphor 03:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Phgao 00:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • The only edits I ever see on this very important article are spamlinks or minor wording corrections. As an article, it is highly deficient in almost everything I can think off apart from the usual banalities. It needs scrupulous sourcing, evidence based interventions, and of course information on the hijacking of the concept by the alternative lobby. JFW | T@lk 06:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes this article should be of utmost importance in the medical field, this could be a superb article if it got up to scratch. Phgao 00:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blood (08 November, 2007)

[edit]
Nominated at 10:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC).

Blood is the 967th most visited wiki pages for August 2007. I think that a lot can be done to improve this page.

Support

  1. Snowman 10:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Popperipopp 23:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Phgao 00:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Although this page already is quite substantial, I think there could be splitting off, if sufficient detail can be added to some sections, although I still think allergy needs more work, blood might be easier to expand. Phgao 01:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rhabdomyolysis (31 December, 2007)

[edit]

Nominated at 22:36, September 30 2007 (UTC)

An interesting article in poor state. Perhaps because there is no ICD10 number attached to it.

Support

  1. --Countincr ( t@lk ) 22:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. JFW | T@lk 07:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Axl (talk) 10:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Of major significance, both in trauma, critical illness and as a drug ADR (statins). Historically a major cause of late mortality from crush injury. Definitely worth a run. JFW | T@lk 07:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stroke (21 January, 2008)

[edit]
Nominated at 09:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC).

A major health problem that has only recently started the receive the research and treatment it deserves.

Support

  1. JFW | T@lk 09:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. WS 17:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. BWM 14 November, 2007
  4. Leevanjackson (talk) 23:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Worth a try - this is a subject relevant to medicine from many different angles, from cardiology, neurology, geriatrics and physiatry to the basic sciences and back. JFW | T@lk 09:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Knockout mouse (11 February, 2008)

[edit]
Nominated at 05:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC).

Topic of the 2007 Nobel Prize in Medicine and in need of expansion, references etc.

Support

  1. tameeria (talk) 05:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Leevanjackson (talk) 23:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. NCurse work 19:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Osteoporosis (27 February, 2008)

[edit]
Nominated at 06:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps not a very glamorous topic, but highly relevant due to increased aging worldwide and the enormous mortality and disability caused by fragility fracture in general.

Support

  1. JFW | T@lk 06:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. NCurse work 19:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. CycloneNimrod (talk) 14:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 22:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Herpes zoster (14 March, 2008)

[edit]
Nominated at 17:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC).

This article was selected on the Medicine portal as one of Wikipedia's best articles related to Medicine. Was a GA grade, but now B.

Support

  1. Snowman (talk) 17:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. JFW | T@lk 20:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Una Smith (talk) 22:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. WS (talk) 22:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Orangemarlin (talk · contribs) worked hard on this, but the more work was done the more everyone realised how much was still necessary. I am sure that GA is easily achievable with some gentle and well-coordinated collaboration.

Pain and nociception (29 March, 2008)

[edit]
Nominated at 20:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC).

Article is pretty long, 34k, yet has only 20 references of dubious use. There is large amounts of detail, but little referencing even with basics like textbooks. Pain is basic to nearly all humans and animals, yet the page is of rather low quality, and seems to get little attention from experienced editors. The quality of the prose is acceptable, but requires specialist attention to expand further.

Support

  1. WLU (talk) 20:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. JFW | T@lk 20:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments.

  • Previously much neglected area of medicine now in a state of heavy flux. Now if only those new discoveries could be translated into new therapeutic modalities... JFW | T@lk 20:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pectus excavatum (12 April, 2008)

[edit]
Nominated at 00:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC).

While it affects many people, the article could still use a lot of help.

Support

  1. Stepshep (talk) 00:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. WS (talk) 22:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. JFW | T@lk 11:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sisyphus (talk) 12:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • It would be nice to do a smaller article for a change. It has the nice bonus of being related to many different areas of medicine, from clinical genetics to plastic surgery. JFW | T@lk 11:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rheumatoid arthritis (26 April, 2008)

[edit]
Nominated at 20:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC).

Quite common, article is in deplorable state, many recent advances both in understanding and management (TNF alpha inhibition)

Support

  1. JFW | T@lk 20:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. NCurse work 09:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. LeeVJ (talk) 22:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments.

  • I realise this article has been through MCOTW before, but clearly very little happened. It is a common condition that is potentially highly debilitating and has major multidisciplinary issues (e.g. intubation in atlanto-axial instability). JFW | T@lk 20:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Long-term effects of alcohol (12 May, 2008)

[edit]
Nominated at 01:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC).

The article covers one of the biggest issues in western health, yet far more refs and text about the benefits of drinking

Support

  1. Leevanjackson (talk) 01:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. JFW | T@lk 07:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. CycloneNimrod (talk) 16:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Physical therapy (27 May, 2008)

[edit]
Nominated at 21:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC).

PT is an article of general interest, and since I have personally made a majority of contributions to the article lately, I would like some assistance from others to get it to GA status.

Support

  1. Eustress (talk) 21:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. JlharrisDPT (talk) 13:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Eilu (talk) 23:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. JFW | T@lk 05:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  1. for education, is it any and all countries under the sun or "major areas" (e.g., Asia/Europe/Africa/Australia)? Eilu (talk) 23:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it would be more helpful if we gave a general picture of the field, with major departures from this general picture in particular countries as long as these departures are notable. Or are you suggesting the field is radically different in different countries? JFW | T@lk 05:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "general picture of the field, with major departures from this general picture in particular countries as long as these departures are notable" was what I was trying to say; you said it better. Eilu (talk) 01:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. should common techniques and modalities be referred to? Likely varies from place to place, but a section briefly listing general stuff like "PTs may use heating, manual therapy, etc..." and also some 'schools of thought' like mulligan/mckenzie may be informative and help link the articles around Eilu (talk) 23:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In an article about PT we can go to town on the general methods, who pioneered them, and when they were widely introduced. Large schools of thought could certainly be mentioned, as long as they are generally recognised, notable and sourceable. It would not be helpful to detail every single treatment. For that, we could use subarticles. JFW | T@lk 05:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ascending cholangitis (12 June, 2008)

[edit]
Nominated at 04:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC).

Life threatening condition, skeleton of article exists but much information can be added to article, already has a pretty image. Should be easy to find a good review article to use as the basis for substantive additions to article.

Support

  1. JC Petit 04:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. JFW | T@lk 05:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Regards, CycloneNimrodTalk? 21:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. WS (talk) 22:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Lymphatic system

[edit]
Nominated at 19:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC).

I feel the article lymphatic system, and all the articles related to it are in a very bad shape. There are very few citations, the articles are almost discontinuous with each other, so much so that they don't seem to be representing the same organ system. Needless, to say this is a very fundamental topic in medicine, in which sometimes even medical students (in my experience, at least) have insufficient knowledge or misconceptions.

In my message to JFW, I conveyed to him that these articles need attention almost on an "emergency basis" if there's such a provision. —KetanPanchaltaLK 19:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. —KetanPanchaltaLK 19:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Regards, CycloneNimrod talk?contribs? 19:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. JFW | T@lk 11:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Ziphon (ALLears) 03:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I agree. Jamie☆S93 16:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • There are no medical emergencies on Wikipedia, but I'm sure that a sufficient number of votes will lead to this article (and related material) being pushed to MCOTW. JFW | T@lk 11:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thrombosis

[edit]
Nominated at 18:45, 23 11 2024

A fairly large topic within the medical community but insufficiently explained on Wikipedia. No references, largely incomplete. Enough information is available from external, reliable resources to turn this into a B-Class or GA given enough attention.

Support

  1. CycloneNimrod (talk) 20:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. JFW | T@lk 22:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. LeeVJ (talk) 22:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 15:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Medicine

[edit]
Nominated at 12:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC).

An article of vital importance according to WP:WP1 and this projects namesake! Has been a MCOTW a few years ago, but is still B-class

Support

  1. LeeVJ (talk) 12:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Eleassar my talk 16:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC) The article is quite biased as it describes only curative medicine and almost completely neglects other modern and important paradigms, like community medicine, preemptive measures and public health endeavors.[reply]
  3. JFW | T@lk 05:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. NCurse work 08:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency

[edit]
Nominated at 9 July 2008

Nice article with a strong backbone about the most common enzyme deficiency in the world. Definitely has potential.

Support

  1. — CycloneNimrod  Talk? 17:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. JFW | T@lk 19:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Ziphon (ALLears) 07:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. —KetanPanchaltaLK 15:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. NCurse work 08:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Heart failure

[edit]
Nominated at 09:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC).

Presently a B-class article with some pressing needs in the "pathophysiology" section. Regarded as a no-hope in the past, now highly treatable with a large number of treatment options; could become a GA if updated properly.

Support

  1. JFW | T@lk 09:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 22:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 15:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. WS (talk) 00:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Meningitis

[edit]
Nominated at 18 June 2008

I'm aware this has been a previous MCOTW but I really do feel it to be an important topic, one which is very much in the public eye. It's supposedly a B class, I don't think it'd take too much work to knock it up a bit.

Support

  1. As nom — Regards, CycloneNimrod talk?contribs? 22:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. JFW | T@lk 23:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 15:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. WS (talk) 00:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Most definitely. If this is done properly it might have worldwide impact - it is extremely common in developing countries and pretty lethal do to lack of medication and complete absence of supportive treatment. It is also pretty "hot" in scientific terms, e.g. whether and when dexamethasone might be indicated. JFW | T@lk 23:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Infectious mononucleosis

[edit]
Nominated at 15:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Now here's an article that would deserve our attention: wasn't even assessed as part of medicine! Still has many gaps and jargon. Mega-obviously important subject.

Support

  1. As nom. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 15:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Regards, CycloneNimrod talk?contribs? 17:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. JFW | T@lk 17:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jeyradan | Talk
  5. Kpjas (talk) 19:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  1. Heard about glandular fever again earlier on the radio, why not. Regards, CycloneNimrod talk?contribs? 17:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Needs careful delineation from the EBV article. This is one of the things that went wrong on herpes zoster. JFW | T@lk 17:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Premature birth

[edit]
Nominated at 20:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC).

C-class but high importance article in an underexposed area on Wikipedia. Some very good recent sources that should make this really straightforward

Support

  1. JFW | T@lk 20:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. —KetanPanchaltaLK 21:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. —CycloneNimrodTalk? 10:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. WS (talk) 00:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Kpjas (talk) 22:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments.

  1. A very important topic indeed, which much like the other obstetrics articles needs quite a bit of attention, though, myself would be unable to contribute. All the best! —KetanPanchaltaLK 21:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. I'd really like to see ectopic pregnancy sorted out properly at some point too, we don't pay enough attention to our Ob/Gyn articles. —CycloneNimrodTalk? 10:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's in part because ob/gyns don't pay enough attention to Wikipedia. JFW | T@lk 12:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Surely you could say the same for almost any specialty, though. There are comparatively very few physicians on Wikipedia ;) —CycloneNimrodTalk? 14:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blood-brain barrier

[edit]
Nominated at 4 May 2008

Important article regarding both medicine and pharmacy, IMHO. It's got a good basis and a lot of information, just needs to be cleaned and cited a lot more.

Support

  1. Regards, CycloneNimrodTalk? 16:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. JFW | T@lk 06:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jeyradan | Talk
  4. Kpjas (talk) 19:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Systemic lupus erythematosus

[edit]
Nominated at 13 July 2008

Support

  1. JFW | T@lk 05:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. —CycloneNimrodTalk? 18:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jeyradan | Talk
  4. Kpjas (talk) 19:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Not very common, but much talked about and gradually more understood over time. With the recent NEJM article on the mechanisms of disease of SLE (PMID 18305268), we should now be able to produce a GA level article. JFW | T@lk 05:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huntington's disease

[edit]
Nominated at 23:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC).

Biannual collaboration? so may be familiar to you, especially JFW - who performed a recent GA review of the article, so can have a week off, if he likes :) We last collaborated in 2006 but the article has been kept largely upto scratch witch MEDMOS, has a todo list ( including GA review points), and a range of subject matter (especially if you follow the links!) so should be straightforward and something for everyone. Article has regular contributors (besides me -cheers if you're one!), but with a little MCOTW push we can better it's B-class: ) (B-class)(90,000 hits/month)(mid)(todo)

Support

  1. LeeVJ (talk) 23:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. JFW | T@lk 23:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kpjas (talk) 19:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Ziphon (ALLears) 23:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. NCurse work 13:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments.


ADHD

[edit]
Nominated at 17:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC).

This article is of a very controversial nature. Is an important topic due to how common it is. However it doesn't currently provide a good overview of the evidence.

Support

  1. Doc James (talk) 17:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. JFW | T@lk 16:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. 92.5.155.82 (talk) 10:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC) I'd agree with this, more eyes would be helpful.[reply]
  4. Jeyradan (talk) 16:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Sifaka talk 02:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. cyclosarin (talk) 10:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments.


Abdominal aortic aneurysm

[edit]
Nominated at 18:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC).

A relatively rare (2-4% in the USA) yet potentially devastating condition. AAA is in a reasonable state but as such a well-known condition it should be fairly easy to find resources to expand the article up to (perhaps) a GA-class article

Support

  1. —CycloneNimrodTalk? 18:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. JFW | T@lk 05:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kpjas (talk) 22:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. WS (talk) 17:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Congenital heart defect

[edit]
Nominated at 14:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC).

Another important topic, which is done poorly present.

Support

  1. PhilKnight (talk) 14:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Craig Hicks (talk) 16:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. JFW | T@lk 17:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. WS (talk) 22:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Kallimachus (talk) 11:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments.

Asthma

[edit]
Nominated on 07:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

A major disease of top important that could use some work. Currently being reviewed by the Google people (See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Google_Project).

Support

1. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2. Peter.C • talk 01:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3. Craig Hicks (talk) 17:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

4. WS (talk) 12:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments.

Trauma (medicine)

[edit]
Nominated on 07:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

A top importance article. The leading cause of death between about 5 and 55 in the Western world. A long neglected article.

Support

1. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2. Peter.C • talk 13:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3. Kallimachus (talk) 02:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

4. Craig Hicks (talk) 13:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments.

Hypercholesterolemia

[edit]
Nominated on 20:57, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

A major disease of top important that could use some work.

Support

  1. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:57, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kallimachus (talk) 22:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. JFW | T@lk 17:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Mattopaedia Say G'Day! 22:08, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Craig Hicks (talk) 13:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments.

Cancer

[edit]
Nominated at 00:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC).

It is only a B-class article and it is a vital article to Wikipedia and a very important subject

Support

  1. Peter.C • talk 00:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments.

Spinal cord injury

[edit]
Nominated on 31 October 2010

This is a very important subject and the article requires the work of devoted editors to help fix it up. It can easily be brought up to a GA if we can all collaborate on it.

Support

  1. as nom Peter.C • talk 15:24, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Craig Hicks (talk) 13:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. WS (talk) 23:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Diabetes mellitus

[edit]
Nominated at 04:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC).

Of top importance and needs further work. 27th most viewed.

Support

  1. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. WS (talk) 09:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Enviropearson (talk) 23:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jesanj (talk) 15:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. NCurse work 18:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments .

Transverse myelitis

[edit]
Nominated at 05:23, 18 October 2014 (UTC).

17 October 2014

Support

  1. Important topic with a Wikipedia page that is in dire need of improvement. This article also receives a respectable amount of monthly views (about 17K). I think this page would benefit greatly from making it a collaboration of the month and currently see no other contenders.
  2. Agree on its importance and it unfortunately is a very poor article at this moment (only a start class). Peter.C • talk • contribs 18:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  3. support this article does need help--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:25, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --WS (talk) 11:12, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Collaboration_of_the_Month/Successful_nominations&oldid=1258670680"