Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 September 2019 and 13 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Eggenrn7502.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

removal of false information[edit]

I corrected several wrong statements about protozan infections. Neither of the infections caused by trypanosomatids is transmited by a mosquito and there is no vaccine for Chagas disease as far as I know. Guido

You are correct; there is no Chagas vaccine, though HAT and Chagas are both transmitted by insect bite (but not mosquito, as you said) OcciMoron 02:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikiproject?[edit]

Wikipedia could benefit from a neglected disease wikiproject. How does one go about starting one? OcciMoron 03:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nice thinking. Hmm.. Wikipedia:WikiProject is the obvious starting point.. but from the proposals page it sounds like you'd be better off starting a task force within an existing project like WikiProject Medicine. I guess the first thing to do is make this article part of that project somehow. —Pengo 14:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can you explain why you think a task force is a better idea? It's not entirely clear to me. OcciMoron 14:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals says: "If the scope of your project idea is very narrow (such as a TV show, music band, video game, etc), or your idea is a variation on a common theme, consider starting a task force of an existing project instead of a whole new WikiProject." I'm thinking that neglected diseases has a fairly limited scope. But then again, setting up a WikiProject still doesn't sound like such a bad idea to me either. So either way, really. —Pengo 13:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
From some brief work I've done in neglected disease, I can pretty safely say that it isn't all that narrow. Awareness of neglected disease is increasing, there are new governmental initiatives, a PLoS journal is launching in the fall dealing with NTDs specifically, etc. etc. Neglected disease has a lot of public policy and public health aspects that are as yet unrecognized by wikipedia, and there are other things too. If I find the time, I'll definitely try and turn this into a Wikiproject. OcciMoron 15:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposed Sections[edit]

I think that this page could benefit from descriptions of:

I will be trying to add these over time, but it will be a difficult process, so any help would be appreciated. If you need guidance, I have done a lot of fact-finding about NTDs, so just ask and I may be able to point you towards a source of information. OcciMoron 01:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've added the above to a "to do" list above. It's not as good as adding the actual information, but well.. it's a to do list. —Pengo 06:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removing the cause[edit]

At the tropical disease talk i placed this section below; I think that the tropical disease article should be moved and altered as diseases occuring in the tropics have nothing to do with the climate (rather the reasons mentioned below have, and perhaps its true that certain organisms as mosquitos may survive only in the tropics; this still has nothing to do with the virus/bacteria itself; the mosquito only carries the bacteria/virus):

I think the tropical disease article should be moved. It is discriminating to use the term tropical disease; this implies that the diseases mentioned do not occur in temperate zone (which is incorrect; eg malaria was previously occuring in the Netherlands, leishmaniasis occurs in italy, ...) and the creation of this article further increases the insight of many that most of the diseases occur in the tropics; which is not accurate. Probably one of the key reasons why certain diseases still prevail in the tropics is because the pharmaceutical companies have only been intrested in eliminating diseases in the temperate (rich) countries (eg polio), and are now shifting to other lucrative problems (eg viagra). Other reasons are probably high population density (see this article) additional factors as weak hygiene and sanitation; which is a social/economical problem and has nothing to do with the climatological situation.

The first line for the neglected disease article should be something like: Neglected diseases are diseases that have been neglected by pharmaceutical companies and the local population and which are gaining ever more ground in large areas. Neglection by pharamaceutical companies is primarily the objection of making any vaccins or medicinal drugs against the diseases at all, while the indiginous population itself has not given enough attention to personal hygiene, protection from insect bites/stings, and a failure of setting up good sanitation (such as covered sewage canals, ...)

I think such article is far more fair and objective (does not put any group in favor; neither the west or the locals) and subtracts diseases from climate

I recommend that atleast the root causes are mentioned in the article; this article kinda places all the fault with the pharmaceutical companies, which too is not objective —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.245.173.181 (talk) 09:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

independence from 'tropics'[edit]

i agree that article should abstract from 'tropics' and neglected diseases are those plainly neglected by public attention from various reasons.

those can include i.e. inapropriate media attention, plain ignorance, or being 'taboo' related like STD's.

83.18.229.190 (talk) 09:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Picture of boy from Panama[edit]

Unfortunately, the caption reads, in part, "It has manifested as an acute infection with swelling of the right eye (chagoma)." Because this is a photograph, the boy's right and left are reversed, and it appears that his left eye is significantly larger than his right. I'm wondering if the picture should be re-reversed to accurately portray the eye swelling. Of course, a simpler solution would be to remove the reference to his "right" eye, which isn't particularly necessary or useful. Cuvtixo (talk) 12:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think people know that the right eye is on the left looking at a photograph. I'd be careful about not mentioning "right" eye. Try to get some input from a doc who knows about this Romana's sign. If its pathognomic, and maybe that's why it's on the Chagas page, then probably should be the same way it is on Chagas page. The Romana's sign is important, otherwise the pic doesn't seem particularly interesting. JuanTamad (talk) 00:10, 1 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have no problems with the change, but just letting you know I copied the image and caption from the Chagas disease article so you might want to check that too. (Actually, it seems the caption was taken from CDC's Public Health Image Library, where the image was originally sourced.) —Pengo 01:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Plans for Editing Article[edit]

I am an undergraduate student at Rice University in Houston, TX and am planning on editing this article as part of a Poverty, Justice, and Human Capabilities class. I would like to expand this article and add more information about the specific diseases and their sociological impact. I will try to address the “to do” list goals. I am also considering combining this page with the “Neglected tropical disease research and development” article. Does this seem like a good idea? I think there is a lot of information about neglected tropical diseases, but I don’t think that splitting the topic in two makes sense since both articles are missing a lot of important information. I plan on using scholarly articles as my sources.

I understand the reasoning behind removing the “tropical” aspect of neglected tropical diseases, but since this is a specific term for a category of diseases recognized by the WHO, CDC, and many researchers, that occur primarily in the tropics, I think it is better to keep the term “tropical” in the title. I will, however, research whether there are any other diseases that “neglected” by the neglected tropical disease category.

I would welcome any feedback that anyone has on this.Juliannadrew (talk) 21:58, 20 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am also an undergraduate student at Rice University, currently thinking about continuing to edit this articles for the same class. I am interested in adding a section on how the United States is handling the increasing trend of NTDs within it's borders. I agree with Julianna that the to do list is important. I would like to add to those areas as well. I have found a lot of great scholarly articles on the topic. I am also considering adding a sub-section on Peter Hotez, as it seems that he has done the bulk of the work in the field. Let me know what you think of these proposed edits. Thanks!
Akweaver32 (talk) 01:47, 9 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Great! I am sure the article will benefit from your work. Just think carefully how you would add this additional information into the right place of the existing structure. Not sure what you want to include about Peter Hotez, as he already has his own Wikipedia page? One sentence and a link to his page might suffice? While you work on this article, how about adding one image for each of disease listed? That would be useful, I think. I also don't think the image for the lead is all that great. Perhaps a collage might be better, like we did for toilet in the lead section. EvMsmile (talk) 12:07, 9 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I like the collage idea. The boy image is good, could be one of the collage. JuanTamad (talk) 00:02, 1 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Summary of comments/feedback[edit]

Hi Julianna! I think the additions you have made to the article so far are great. You manage to maintain a neutral tone, keep good formatting, and include a variety of sources on the topic. My main criticisms are that the article needs more images (both photos and graphs to give the reader a comprehensive visual of the topic) and needs to be more comprehensive. I think you do a great job describing the diseases themselves (in terms of prevalence, symptoms, etiology, treatments, etc), but there is a lot more that could be said about the social and economic impact. For example, you mention that decreased school performance/attendance is a consequence of NTD’s. Can you expand more on that? What are the consequences of this decline in education for these already impoverished individuals? Are women more affected by NTD’s than men? What is the economic burden on developing countries due to loss of productivity from these diseases? Finally, I think the sections about the individual diseases could benefit from being organized into a table for ease of reading. I am excited to see where your article is headed!

LWang1991 (talk) 04:45, 1 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I also think it is a nice article. I also thought some more photos could be good, however there is the consideration that some of the diseases already have their own Wikipedia article, for example the disease soil-transmitted helminthiasis. Therefore, I would argue not to go into too much depth for that disease but to rather make sure people realise that they can find more information about that disease on the other Wikipedia page. Otherwise - if we described the disease also here in detail - then it would be doubling of efforts to keep both pages up to date.
Perhaps this page should rather focus more on the institutional aspects (why have these diseases been neglected), the global and national initiatives in place to tackle them, the costs it would take and the possible economic gains; the role of poor sanitation, poverty, inequity, gender issues - which is a root cause or compounding factor for many of these diseases.
So I guess what I am saying: rather than focussing more on each of these individual diseases in depth, look for the common elements for all of them in terms of preventation (and cure); e.g. access to safe sanitation would be one of them. EvM-Susana (talk) 11:24, 9 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Peer Review[edit]

Hi Julianna! Great job with your article! As far as editing, I think that more consistency with the complete sentences or not would be good and then consistency with the lists of information for each disease with the same topics in the same order would be greatly helpful to readability and formatting consistency. Also, I’m sure there are some great graphics showing disease, as well as maps which would really add to your article. Great job! Cnicholson12 (talk) 05:15, 24 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Put information on four causative pathogens back in[edit]

Someone deleted this part from the lead recently: These diseases result from four different causative pathogens: (i) Protozoa (Chagas disease, Human African trypanosomiasis, Leishmaniases); (ii) Bacteria (Buruli ulcer, Leprosy, Trachoma, Yaws), (iii) Helminth Cysticercosis/Taeniasis, Dracunculiasis, Echinococcosis, Foodborne trematodiases Lymphatic filariasis, Onchocerciasis, Schistosomiasis, Soil-transmitted helminthiases); and (iv) Virus (Dengue and Chikungunya, Rabies). I am not an expert on NTDs but this information and grouping seemed quite relevant for me. Shouldn't it be put back in? Perhaps not in the lead but somewhere in the article? EvM-Susana (talk) 20:32, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, you asked me to comment. I don't see any reason to exclude. It is in the article as of now. juanTamad (talk) 10:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Great, thanks. Someone must have put it back in, that's good. EvMsmile (talk) 13:08, 30 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WHO list of 17 diseases does not include snakebite[edit]

The list had been reverted to a previous one that includes snakebite. I had changed it to match the 17 NTDs listed by the WHO, here. Seems to me that is most appropriate, especially since the sentence introducing the list says "The World Health Organization (WHO) recognizes the seventeen diseases below as neglected tropical diseases" and cites the same WHO website. The list did NOT include the foodborne trematodiases, which is how I arrived on this page; I was doing some work on those pages. (The foodborne trematodiases maybe deserve an article). There are articles in the medical literature expressing a rationale and call for including snakebite, and mention of that should be included somewhere, but seems to me the "official" list should be the 17 that the WHO has on the website until WHO decides to change it, otherwise the list seems to violate NOR. When I came across it a few days ago, I thought it must not have been updated in awhile. I don't see any reason to use different terms. It would be better that the diseases appear in the same order as on the WHO website, just for clarity I think. juanTamad (talk) 11:02, 30 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for this explanation. Really glad you're taking an interesting in this page, that's great. I think it's a pretty important page. I had the impression that earlier editors had included also non-WHO type sources and definitions. It seems to be not totally clear cut. I liked the information about controversies, so yes, I think we should mention somehow this issue about snake bite (i.e. that WHO does not include it in the NTD list but other organizations do?). As to a page on foodborne trematodiases - sounds good; is it not covered by any of the existing helminthiasis sub-pages (there are so many of them, I lose track). EvMsmile (talk) 13:11, 30 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Incorrect information on praziquantel[edit]

Dear all, There is a mistake in the following paragraph: "Merck has helped The African Programme for the Control of Onchocerciasis (APOC) and Oncho Elimination Programme for the Americas to greatly diminished the impact of Onchocerciasis by donating ivermectin.[10] They have also pledged to give 200 million tablets of praziquantel over 10 years." The donation of 200 million tablets is not done by Merck Sharpe & Dohme, it is a programme of Merck KGaA. Please see the following reference that you can also use for the article as well.[1] If you have any questions feel free to reach out to me. (Florian Schaub at Merck KGaA (talk) 16:47, 8 December 2015 (UTC))Reply[reply]

 Done Altamel (talk) 21:22, 8 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://partnerships.ifpma.org/partnership/merck-praziquantel-donation-program

Missing history?[edit]

This seems to be an important part of the history of NTD, missing in the article: Ken Warren and the Rockefeller Foundation’s Great Neglected Diseases Network, 1978–1988: The Transformation of Tropical and Global Medicine I found it while reading Neglected tropical diseases in the genomics era: re-evaluating the impact of new drugs and mass drug administration JuanTamad (talk) 17:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jtamad: It is not much but I added a section, single sentence, and citation to the article. Thanks for the source. This unusual concept is more social than medical so of course there should be a history section here. Surely there are more historical sources to be found. Blue Rasberry (talk) 03:24, 20 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Potential Bibliography[edit]

Keating, Conrad. “Ken Warren and the Rockefeller Foundation’s Great Neglected Diseases Network, 1978–1988: The Transformation of Tropical and Global Medicine.” Molecular Medicine, 2014, 24-30. Accessed September 22, 2016. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4374516/.

This article describes some history on of the fore-figures in NTD research and development, especially the work of Ken Warren with the Rockefeller Foundation. I would like to use this a base for a history of neglected tropical diseases. This section will also be supplemented by information from the book written by Peter Hotez, Forgotten People, Forgotten Diseases.

Hotez, Peter J. Forgotten People, Forgotten Diseases: The Neglected Tropical Diseases and Their Impact on Global Health and Development. Washington, DC: ASM Press, 2008.

This book is an extremely comprehensive review of the neglected tropical diseases and their impact. No doubt it is already a source for the Wikipedia article. I will use this book as a resource to add information to the diseases and the section on epidemiology.

Weiss, Mitchell G. "Stigma and the social burden of neglected tropical diseases." PLoS Negl Trop Dis 2, no. 5 (2008): e237.

This source will provide information for the section concerning the social impact of neglected tropical diseases. The article is specifically about how many of the diseases are associated with physically altering symptioms. These, in turn, lead to shunning, divorce, ostracization, and removal of social support for the people afflicted. It is one among the many reasons why NTDs are such a problem.

Litt, Elizabeth, Margaret C. Baker, and David Molyneux. "Neglected tropical diseases and mental health: a perspective on comorbidity." Trends in parasitology 28, no. 5 (2012): 195-201.

This article elaborates on the social consequences of NTDs. Specifically, the effects on the mental health of these diseases. I will use this source to flesh out the social impact section.

Hotez, Peter, Eric Ottesen, Alan Fenwick, and David Molyneux. "The neglected tropical diseases: the ancient afflictions of stigma and poverty and the prospects for their control and elimination." In Hot Topics in Infection and Immunity in Children III, pp. 23-33. Springer US, 2006.

This article also falls into the category of social impact. However, it extends into how the social impact effect their ability to control and cured. This may be applicable to the prevention section as well.

King, Charles H., and Anne-Marie Bertino. “Asymmetries of Poverty: Why Global Burden of Disease Valuations Underestimate the Burden of Neglected Tropical Diseases.” PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases 2, no. 3 (2008). Accessed September 22, 2016. Doi:10.1371/journal.pntd.0000209.

The information in this section pertains to why neglected tropical diseases are neglected. It will also provide a breadth of statistics on the global burden of these diseases. I will use for the history as well as the statistical section that I mention in my proposal.

Mathers, Colin D., Majid Ezzati, and Alan D. Lopez. “Measuring the Burden of Neglected Tropical Diseases: The Global Burden of Disease Framework.” PloS Neglected Tropical Diseases 1, no. 2 (2007). Doi:10.1371/journal.pntd.0000114.

This is another article that will provide a summary of the global affliction by this family of diseases. It will also go into the epidemiology section, and perhaps the sections on the individual diseases. Trouiller, Patrice, Piero Olliaro, Els Torreele, James Orbinski, Richard Laing, and Nathan Ford. “Drug Development for Neglected Diseases: A Deficient Market and a Public-health Policy Failure.” The Lancet 359, no. 9324 (2002): 2188-194. Accessed September 22, 2016. Doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(02)09096-7.

This article concerns the drug market and its limitations. It will be used to add information to the economic impact, expanding it to cover the economics of treatment.

Brady, Molly A., Pamela J. Hooper, and Eric A. Ottesen. "Projected benefits from integrating NTD programs in sub-Saharan Africa." TRENDS in Parasitology 22, no. 7 (2006): 285-291.

This article will also contribute to the information on the economics of treatment. It will add to the already existing information in the article about the benefits of treatment programs. It is important to note that this article is specifically about sub-Saharan Africa.

Singer, Merrill, and Nicola Bulled. "Interlocked infections: the health burdens of syndemics of neglected tropical diseases." Annals of Anthropological Practice 36, no. 2 (2012): 328-345.

As stated in my proposal, one issue that I see as not covered comprehensively by the article is co-infection. It is one of the reasons why NTDs are so detrimental to the communitry that they infect. This and other articles will add to that section.

Lindoso, José AL, Ana CS Lima, Mirella A. Cunha, and Claudia MC Gomes. "Diagnosing Neglected Tropical Diseases in HIV Coinfection." Human Parasitic Diseases 7 (2015): 11.

One of the most under-recognized aspects of an already under-recognized problem is co-infection. Research, such as this article, has found that having some NTDs can increase one’s chances of becoming infected with another diseases. While this piece specifically talks about HIV, many other infections are possible.

Desforges, Jane F., and Louis V. Kirchhoff. “American Trypanosomiasis (Chagas’ Disease) – A Tropical Disease Now in the United States.” New England Journal of Medicine 329, no. 9 (1993): 639-44. Doi:10.1056/nejm199308263290909.

Another section that is becoming increasing relevant within the topic of neglected tropical diseases is their spread to the ‘developed’ world. Given that the topic has been receiving more attention since this trend started, it is important to cover as it may result in a large shift in the public policy surrounding the topic.

Hotez, Peter J. “Fighting Neglected Tropical Diseases in the Southern United States.” BMJ 345, no. 20 (2012). Accessed September 22, 2016. Doi:10.1136/bmj.e6304.

This article is specifically about techniques to be applied in the Southern United States. This region is complex because of the fact that these diseases almost exclusively affect the poorest among these communities.

Hotez, P. “Neglected Diseases Amid Wealth In The United States And Europe.” Health Affairs 28, no. 6 (2009): 1720-725. Accessed September 22, 2016. Doi:10.1377/hlthaff.28.6.1720.

Another article on how neglected tropical diseases are not confined to the ‘developing ‘ world. Will also go on to inform the content on NTDs in the ‘developed’ world.

Colatrella, Brenda. "The Mectizan Donation Program: 20 years of successful collaboration—a retrospective." Annals of Tropical Medicine & Parasitology (2013).

In this article, the author details the partnership between Mectizan, a pharmaceutical company, and the people that it donates to. I will use this source to add to information regarding the prevention. Although this is already a relatively well-developed section, I believe that more can be added.

Payne, Lara, and Joseph R. Fitchett. "Bringing neglected tropical diseases into the spotlight." Trends in parasitology 26, no. 9 (2010): 421-423.

Neglected tropical diseases are all united by the fact that they are neglected. Therefore, one of the most important topics of the related public policy is public awareness. This source outlines potential ways to accomplish this goal.

Spiegel, Jerry M., Shafik Dharamsi, Kishor M. Wasan, Annalee Yassi, Burton Singer, Peter J. Hotez, Christy Hanson, and Donald A. P. Bundy. “Which New Approaches to Tackling Neglected Tropical Diseases Show Promise?” PloS Med PloS Medicine 7, no. 5 (2010). Doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000255.

This article continues the information of the first. It will provide information for the prevention section as well. Specifically, the authors outline and assess the pros and cons of different strategies. As far as I can tell, the section on specific strategies is lacking. There is currently a lot of emphasis on the partnerships that are actually working in the field.

World Health Organization. Dept. of Control of Neglected Tropical Diseases. Neglected Tropical Diseases, Hidden Successes, Emerging Opportunities. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2009. PDF.

This source is not a scholarly article. However, it is a comprehensive review of the current state of the diseases as assesses by the World Health Organization. It details the gains and losses in each disease with regards to the methods that are being used against them.

Please let me know if you have any further suggestions for sources. Akweaver32 (talk) 23:05, 25 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is excellent! It looks like you're really putting a lot of work into this page. BSchilling (talk) 16:13, 7 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just making sure: you are planning to cite these references rather than adding them as "additional reading" - right? I think it's always better to cite references and NOT just list them as additional reading. EvMsmile (talk) 16:35, 21 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question on References[edit]

I am running into the citing error message 'defined multiple times with different content.' How can I fix this? Akweaver32 (talk) 07:43, 13 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Right, this is because you used both the visual editor and the old editor to copy content.
When you create a citation on a new page in the visual editor it gives it the name ":0". If you combine two pages that both give the name ":0" to a single citation it breaks. The solution is to only copy using the visual editor, or to give unique names, such as "Granger 2016" or something similar. Since you're new I'm going to try and fix your issue for you this time. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 12:11, 13 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ping Akweaver32 — the issue is fixed, but it may become more difficult to fix if it happens again (which might mean lots of extra work). So, either always use the visual editor to copy from your sandbox into this page, or always give names to your references. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 12:25, 13 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Great, thank you for your help. Akweaver32 (talk) 13:24, 14 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Peer Review of Neglected Topical Diseases Article[edit]

Hi Mandy, I think your additions are important and bring light to the issues not yet discussed in the article, such as the effects of NTDs on marginalized populations and on mental health. I was really impressed by how your additions had previously been overlooked, but you had made it a point to write about these issues. I also think some of these topics, such as the prevalence of NTDs in the US, could also be discussed in the lead. I believe the article could most benefit from the expansion of the “Prevention” and “Policy Initiatives Sections.” These sections are concentrated on specific topics and are not comprehensive, but I wonder if that may be because of a lack of data. Another area that I thought was significant but was also lacking was “Treatment.” Prevention is a section, but treatment isn’t, and I believe this could be an important addition for readers. I also suggest that a graphic summarizing the NTDs mentioned in the article and their prevention/treatment methods could be discussed. The topic sentences could be improved in their neutrality and replaced by more factual information. The article also relies heavily on the World Health Organization, and perhaps, the perspectives of other NGOs could be introduced. The same applies for links. More images can certainly be added in. SBanda (talk) 00:11, 17 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Peer Review of Neglected Tropical Diseases by Michelle[edit]

Mandy-

Like Snigdha, I thought that your contributions to the article were very valuable, especially your points about addressing NTDs in the developed world and their impact on mental and maternal health. Furthermore, I liked how you really attempted to discuss all points of view in your contributions to the three sections. E.g. when you discussed DALY’s you also presented criticism about how the DALY measurement can be improved upon.

I am not quite sure what you are hoping to edit next, but I think that a continuation of the discussion of how to address NTD’s in the developed world would be valuable. Yes, the preventative measure do exist, but why are the people who need them the most not getting them? Do we need to improve delivery of care methods to reach these marginalized people? The article is very long and relatively well developed, but I think if you continue editing along this vein, you could make it even more comprehensive. Continue discussing NTDs in the context of the developed world. You can also expand on more current initiatives and policy proposals and perhaps even discuss the END7 movement occurring across college campuses like Rice U in the US. Overall great job and looking forward to seeing what else you contribute! Mtran99 (talk) 00:10, 18 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Peer Review 2 of Neglected Tropical Disease by Michelle[edit]

Mandy-

Good job at making an important addition to the lead. This will reflect your expansion on NTDs in the developed world, which I find to be one of your most important contributions to this article. Also I am glad you followed Snigdha and my suggestions to talk more about the effects of NTDs on girls and also in Europe as well as the existence of the END7 campaign and the Sabin Institute; overall, I think you are adding very important and interesting content.

I am not sure where you will take the article next, but I was interested about what you discussed regarding treatment delivery. Perhaps you can discuss obstacles in treatment delivery and current practices. Also if you continue down the vein of writing about NTDs affecting pocket communities in the developed world, you can talk about the existence of any policy or NGO initiatives for these target groups. Again, nice job! Mtran99 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:35, 1 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Can we please have more images?[edit]

It was mentioned somewhere above but I've added now a new heading for this. The article would greatly benefit from more images (e.g. one for each disease??). I don't think the one chosen for the lead is very representative (that sad looking boy). The other images were all added by me but surely there are more and better ones out there which could be added?? Might also be useful to add a couple of slum photos to illustrate the issue of poverty. - I've just come back from 2 months absence from Wikipedia and am so happy to see that this article has received so much improvement work! Thanks to all editors involved! EvMsmile (talk) 16:37, 21 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copying something that we said above:

I also don't think the image for the lead is all that great. Perhaps a collage might be better, like we did for toilet in the lead section. EvMsmile (talk) 12:07, 9 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I like the collage idea. The boy image is good, could be one of the collage. JuanTamad (talk) 00:02, 1 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Peer Review #2[edit]

Mandy, I think you've made thoughtful contributions that greatly add to the article. You have added citations for the information you inserted and you have increased the comprehensiveness of sections like "Social Impact" and the lead, which I think provides a more accurate, informed picture. I think a couple of areas of growth are reducing the number of vague or non-cited sentences you add, continuing to increase the comprehensiveness of sections like "Prevention", revising the citations, and adding more pictures. Good work! SBanda (talk) 03:13, 1 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Combine with NTD research and development?[edit]

I've been reading the other article and there is a lot of overlap. Is there any major reason to not merge them? Akweaver32 (talk) 16:29, 3 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Coming back to this, 5 years later. I am adding the merger tags now. EMsmile (talk) 00:53, 23 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  checkY Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 07:30, 15 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Editing a section on 'current status/updates'[edit]

Hope it is okay with everyone that I will give editing a section on 'current status/updates' for this subject a go (new editor so will not be offended/in fact am very keen) to get your thoughtsFarfan.emma (talk) 20:29, 1 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@User:Farfan.emma I have moved your note to the end of the talk page. New edits should generally go to the end of the talk page. Yes, please work on this article. But I don't think it needs a section called "current status" (after all, what is "current" when it stays there fore some years?). Rather make the updates in the different sections of the article, whereever it fits. Probably you could add updated information for any of the diseases and policy initiatives listed (for example). EMsmile (talk) 02:26, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Restructuring work in April 2021[edit]

I have just done a bit of restructuring on this article. I felt that the sections on "effects" were mixing up the effects of having NTDs with the effects of treatment (mainly deworming). I have tried to improve that now. Also the section on "prevention" covers more than just prevention. I have renamed that one to "prevention, treatment and eradication". Have also added a link to SDG 3 and a more up to date world map for the lead image. If someone has time, the article would benefit from further updates with regards to the numbers and policy initiatives. EMsmile (talk) 01:37, 23 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Using excerpts more?[edit]

I've just added excerpts for scabies and for snakebite. But we could actually add an excerpt for each of the other diseases as well. Might be more efficient than having a paragraph that repeats the information from the sub-article? EMsmile (talk) 11:54, 18 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi User:Smasongarrison good to see you here, at a Wikipedia article that feels a bit neglected too (just like the diseases that it covers...). I am just wondering if you have an opinion regarding the question I posed just above, i.e. should the content about the individual diseases be shortened/optimised by using excerpts rather then the text that is currently there? Those text blocks could be moved to the individual disease articles if they contain information that is not already there. EMsmile (talk) 12:13, 23 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have just added an excerpt for Chromoblastomycosis. There's good content in this article but it sometimes seems to get lost in repetition. I think that if each piece of information could be stated only once then the whole article would be much more readable, but it's a challenge to know the most relevant place to put each part without it being unclear for people jumping in to read only a single section. --Mgp28 (talk) 17:45, 30 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Categories