GA Review[edit]

There are presently quite a few things that need addressing:

Not sure how to include this, really, without including a complete overview of the transfusion process. A "supply and demand" section might be worth adding. (SDY)
Not really, and  Fixed (SDY)
Some actions taken, but not 100% sure it's addressed. (SDY)
Some additional sources added. ((SDY))

Hope this all works out. I'll try to do some copyediting myself if time permits. I will also ask Snowmanradio (talk · contribs) to offer some expertise. JFW | T@lk 19:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not clear what you mean by "put in a larger framework."
    • For instance, it presently lists only four common blood-borne diseases. It insinuates that others may be checked, but does not really indicate what kind of diseases would need screening for. JFW | T@lk 19:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The problem is that the tests (and screening questions) that are used vary based on the country and the component, and trying to list all possible permutations here wouldn't be PRTTI. Transfusion transmitted infection is an article that could be written to cover all the possible bugs (HIV, HBV, HCV, HAV, CMV, HTLV, SARS, Chagas, Babesiosis, Malaria, Leishmaniasis, vCJD, Syphilis, SFV, and others). I could give long lists of example testing algorithms, and if you look at older versions of the article a list existed. It was removed as part of part of the globalization complaint, so I reduced it to the "WHO recommended" list. As you might guess from the notes on frequency of donation, there isn't a lot of consensus out there on "the right way" to do this.Somedumbyankee (talk) 20:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the journal cites could get sticky (Vox Sang, etc... aren't openly available online, though I think I can at least get to Transfusion through AABB's web site). For many of these things, I could cite dead tree editions (AABB tech manual for one), will just take some leg work.
  • I realise that this is often a bit difficult. Guidelines from large organisations tend to be available somewhere, but dead tree editions are sometimes the best... JFW | T@lk 19:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not on home ground with blood donation and I am not an expert in this subject, but I can see that the article needs a lot of attention to the format of references and to general copy editing. I think that some of the descriptions of methods are near to a "how to" and will need precise careful referencing. I would like to see more about the general care of the blood donor, and perhaps a little about blood demands in war or a natural disaster. There are many problems with the article. For example; in the introduction:

Some things added. Shelf life isn't really a donation issue without supply and demand, which would be rather difficult to cite authoritatively. {SDY)
It's US jargon. Generalized, added the equivalent British expression. (SDY)
  • The intro could use some work, I agree.
  • "Blood Drive" may be a US term, though some quick googling shows it's used in Australia, Israel, and India as well. It's jargon, so it's being explained.
  • Uses are mentioned. I've tried to avoid storage in general since that's really more an issue for the blood bank article.
  • Blood collection at high schools in the US are a common event (the rate of donor reactions there is a bit of a concern, though). I'm using the term to include "places that teach stuff."
  • Blood grouping and rare blood groups are not mentioned in detail because it's really not that important when sucking the stuff out, it's just important when putting it back in. The issue is: how much goes in this article, and how much goes into blood bank, transfusion, transfusion medicine, etc...?Somedumbyankee (talk) 22:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Replying to my own comment? Lame. I've addressed many of the concerns given, though not 100% sure if many of them are resolved. I'm leaving for the the land of big belt buckles for a trip which could theoretically leave me out of town for a while (possibly until the 18th) and with limited internet access. If you feel that failing the article is the appropriate thing to do, just leave a list of "further problems" and I'll attempt to address them before resubmitting it. Thanks for all the great comments.Somedumbyankee (talk) 02:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Shame you've got to leave. Well done on all the hard work so far anyway. I won't fail anything just yet, because another editor may take up the baton. At the same time, some work is unfortunately still necessary for it to reach GA quality. Have a safe trip. JFW | T@lk 09:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to make a "to do" list, for clarity. A good portion of this I could just write, but finding authoritative sources may take some work and I'm mostly familiar with the US blood industry:
  • "Supply and demand" section to cover basics about storage, effects of screening on supply, disasters and shortages.
  • Common risks of phlebotomy could use another sentence or two and a supporting cite. The phlebotomy article is not a useful source for sources (it's totally unsourced). Google searches haven't turned up any leads on authoritative sources.
  • Testing section should probably be linked to a new article about Transfusion transmitted infection.
  • The introduction is probably still too short.
  • Post-donation care was previously included in the article, but the section was written in a way that had issues with WP:NOTMANUAL and was axed.
  • Did I miss anything?Somedumbyankee (talk) 15:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The information about Landsteiner and 14 June are not in the main body of the text but appear in the introduction. The introduction should be a summary. I am not sure the Landsteiner's birthday should go in the introduction or not. The middle paragraph of the introduction could be clearer, as its structure is complex and difficult to read. The paragraph starts "This process..."; what process? Snowman (talk) 17:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As might be clear, my internet access is better than expected. Still not sure I like the intro. I've been playing whack-a-((fact)). Some of the linked articles (i.e. TTI, phlebotomy) need some substantial work. There was a request on some comments about post-donation care, not sure exactly what was desired since most of that has WP:NOTMANUAL issues. A brief discussion of fractionation and Factor VIII concentrates might be appropriate as well (the intro is the only mention of pharmaceuticals at this point). Any other points for improvement?Somedumbyankee (talk) 03:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've done what I can for this article, and I don't see anything else that can be reasonably included. "Post-donation care" is something I've wrestled with, and I don't see any way to cite it properly without falling into WP:NOTMANUAL. Somedumbyankee (talk) 16:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think, often a "how to" can be avoided by writing in a tutorial style and providing adequate references. Snowman (talk) 21:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some of it is intentionally vague because of substantial differences in practices around the world. Cites and explanations added for the issues noted in your comments. Somedumbyankee (talk) 02:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nevertheless, recent work on the section on "Site preparation" shows that much of the vagueness there was due to imprecise text. Snowman (talk) 09:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • They're different pages. One is a specific "status update" which directly cites the statistic given in the paragraph. The other is just an explanation of why the day is notable. Somedumbyankee (talk) 12:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Whole blood is the simplest kind of blood donation" - but whole blood is the type of blood that is drawn, and is it the same process when the blood was subsequently processed into FFP (and so on) in the laboratory; "The blood is stored in a blood bag" - what about refrigeration?; "chemical that prevents blood clotting" - can this be narrowed down; "The plasma from whole blood can be used to make fresh frozen plasma" - is it just frozen or is it more complicated than this, and why - effects on preserving components of blood, and only freshly drawn blood can be used to made FFP; "used to treat wounded soldiers" - Does this imply treatment of acute shock? and how does this compare with the modern use of crystalloids in acute shock? Snowman (talk) 10:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look at these, but there's a lot of this that I'm beginning to suspect actually makes the article worse by adding excessive detail on topics that have their own articles, especially things that aren't really related to donation (indications for use on human serum albumin is way beyond the scope of this article). Somedumbyankee (talk) 12:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The revision could be to delete some of the detail; nevertheless, some of the vagueness currently in the article is confusing and in some cases might even give the wrong impression. Snowman (talk) 14:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, punctuation marks are followed immediately by "<ref" without a space between; corrections needed throughout article. Snowman (talk) 14:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes to the introduction:

Updated changes to the introduction:

Status as of June 11th, 3 days left

Editing break

Just by looking at another section, "Blood testing", I found more problems with vague text that have been present in all the other sections I have looked at: "A blood type is often determined by the agency that collects the blood" - which agency; "The tests used are high-sensitivity screening tests and no actual diagnosis is made." - I do not understand this; "including some STDs" - I think the point is lost that these are blood born infectious diseases; "Donated blood is tested by many methods, but the core tests used globally are these four:" - the text goes on to say that only about "56 out of 124 countries" use these tests, so the test seems to be non-global and the article has an internal contradiction. A thorough copy edit of the whole article is needed. Snowman (talk) 09:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the "Screening" section: "Donors are typically required to give consent for the process and this requirement means that minors cannot donate without parental consent." What about Gillick competence which is used in many clinical situations through out the world? Snowman (talk) 10:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This could be addressed, but I feel it is WTMI. This UK article explicitly rejects using that standard for blood donation. This is something for the Gillick competence page to discuss. The article cannot cover, and should not portray itself as covering, every possible clinical and legal situation. There are simply too many variations. New Zealand uses the Gillick test, but they appear to be an outlier (at least in the languages I can read), España doesn't allow anyone under 18, Perú has the same requirement, la Argentina requires parental permission, and so on... This is why it says "generally" and doesn't delude the reader into thinking the article covers every possible situation. As for the testing, in the countries other than the 56, they sometimes do no testing whatsoever, though they would probably use at least those tests if they could. Somedumbyankee (talk) 15:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that some of the vagueness still in the article is confusing and in some cases might even give the wrong impression. The article may need a peer review or become the topic for Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Collaboration of the Week (if selected), and try at GAR on another occasion. Snowman (talk) 10:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have had access problems (home computer broken) but I am aware of Snowmanradio's involvement and am afraid that on review I agree that there are ongoing problems that are presently stopping it from qualifying as a GA. Nevertheless, my compliments for the work and I'm sure it will achieve GAC with a bit of further work. JFW | T@lk 13:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination was failed by the reviewer at 13:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC). Please do not add further comments to this review page. Geometry guy 22:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More