- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:12, 4 July 2011 [1].
Dengue fever (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Nominator(s): JFW | T@lk, Doc James
I am nominating this for featured article because I think that after the work done by James, Graham and myself earlier this year it is now worthy of being considered for featured article status. It is a viral tropical disease that is not as well known as malaria (the WHO considers it a "neglected tropical disease"), but it affects 50-100 million people per year, and has been linked to thousands of deaths (often in young children). During the GAC process it was expanded quite a lot by James and myself, and Graham contributed some more technical content that we had overlooked. I am most grateful for comments on readability offered by Colin in January. JFW | T@lk 19:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This article reflects the most recent understanding of this condition. Well deserving of a FAN.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Organizations like World Health Organization shouldn't be italicized
- Use a consistent date format
- Check for small inconsistencies like doubled periods
- Why give state for Philadelphia and not San Diego? Why note location in FN 20 but not in WHO reference entry? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Response by JFW | T@lk 23:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have altered the citation template calls to ensure WHO is given as publisher; this stops it being italicised
- All full dates are formatted YYYY-MM-DD, unless I missed one
- I found one instance of a double dot; let me know if I overlooked anything
- Cleared up specific inconsistencies that you kindly pointed out.
Support– As the nominators have said, I made some edits to clarify some of the virology and contributed to the section on laboratory diagnosis. The virology is accurate and the prose is up to FA standard now, although there are a few stylistic choices that I would not have made.
I would prefer the "Virology and serology" subheading to read "Laboratory diagnosis" because there already is a "Virology" heading above, and this looks confusing. With regard to the opening sentences of "Signs and symptoms", (which I will paste here to save you having to open another tab) People infected with dengue virus are commonly asymptomatic or only have mild symptoms such as an uncomplicated fever. Others have more severe illness, and in a small proportion it is life-threatening. Is it possible to be more precise? I have a review article here that says, "As many as 80% of all dengue infections are asymptomatic...usually less than 5% can be severe and a fraction of these may be fatal". (Free article reference; Reiter P (March 2010). "Yellow fever and dengue: a threat to Europe?". Eurosurveillance. 15 (10): 19509. PMID 20403310.)
The "Epidemiology" section seems a little short. There is no mention of the three maintenance cycles: the forest cycle of canopy-dwelling mozzies and lower primates; the rural cycle in which other Aedes species are involved and the urban cycle, which the article focuses on. I think a sentence or two is also needed on how urbanisation and increased air travel have changed the epidemiology. Graham Colm (talk) 15:58, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Response - thanks Graham for your comments and your support. The sources say oddly little about the maintenance cycles, possibly because they are not of enormous clinical significance. I was wondering if you were aware of a source that we might use to expand the "Epidemiology" paragraph somewhat. JFW | T@lk 23:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support—Thank you for another quality, informative medical article. My concerns were satisfied or demonstrated as unnecessary. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:36, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—Overall the article is in good shape and I'm close to support. I did have to make a few edits to address some minor issues; hopefully these meet with your approval. Here are my remaining concerns:
The Commons description for the "File:Dengue fever symptoms.svg" image (Summary/References) seems to be somewhat malformed. Can that be cleaned up?The NIH web page on the subject refers to a "second rash, which looks like the measles, appears later in the disease". This doesn't seem to be mentioned in the article. NIH also mentions fatigue and swollen lymph nodes as symptoms.The WHO web page on the topic lists an upper limit of 41 °C for the fever. This article says "frequently over 40 °C" but does not give an upper limit.Is it worth mentioning long-term symptoms?[2]The writing seems to make excessive use of parentheses in a few places, which several writing guides mention as something to avoid.[3][4][5][6] As a heuristic, no more than one pair per paragraph would be good, but I know it sometimes can't be avoided.The article uses unspaced em-dashes "mosquito species—Aedes albopictus" and spaced en-dashes "female aedes mosquitoes – of species". Please be consistent and use one style.As a minor nit, I noticed the 'sfn'-style citations are lacking terminating periods. (Example: Gubler (2010), p. 379) This is inconsistent with the other citations.- Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 17:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Response - thank you RJHall for your ever helpful comments
- I have tried to tidy up the commons page.[7]
- The lymphadenopathy and various descriptions of the rash are not noted in this form in any of the other sources. We mention both the flushed skin and the petechiae, which is the way the WHO 2009 document seems to describe it. With regards to the fatigue, this is a subjective and nonspecific symptom that - if my memory serves - is not mentioned directly in the other sources. I concede that it is often encountered.
- It is pretty unusual for any fever to exceed 41°C (although this is sometimes seen in young children). Above this level, the term "hyperpyrexia" is used. The WHO page actually says "can be as high as", and I don't think an upper limit is definitely intended here.
- I'm puzzled by the mention of this in the Mayo clinic page. Anyone who has had a severe illness may take some time to recover; in dengue there is no particular reason why this should be the case. All our sources are quiet on this, so I would struggle to provide a WP:MEDRS for the claim.
- I will do a cleanout of parentheses.
- I will sort out the dashes situation.
- I will ensure we are consistent with periods in the referencing apparatus. JFW | T@lk 11:34, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have eliminated quite of few of parentheses, but I could not found that many instances. I think the last few remaining ones are functional, and breaking the subclauses out of the parentheses would disrupt the flow of the sentences in question. JFW | T@lk 17:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I have been reviewing this article for several days and am confident it meets all of the FA criteria and then some. As most articles nominated by JFW (in my experience at least), it strikes a near-perfect balance of comprehensiveness and adherence to summary style; the sources are top-notch and fully compliant with WP:MEDRS; the images are appropriate, encyclopedic, and free. The edits made in response to RJHall's comments above dealt with any formatting issues I would have complained about :)
I do have some nitpicks, but they are so minor as to warrant no mention here—I have instead raised them at the nominator's Talk page. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support on prose and comprehensiveness grounds. This one has come together really well. I made some minor changes but can't see any prose deal-breakers left. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:48, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I've gone through this article carefully and after a few tweaks I think the prose is fine and generally lay-friendly (there are parts that are excellent in this regard, and there are always a few areas that could be improved further). I've checked a number of facts against the sources where I'm able to and didn't find any significant problems, nor would I expect to given the folks involved. I haven't checked the comprehensiveness and this probably isn't something I could judge without significant study on my part -- though other reviewers are more able here than me. Good work! Colin°Talk 22:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --WS (talk) 12:33, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Images and spotchecks done by Fvasconcellos and Colin respectively (bolding for delegate benefit). The only suggestion I have here is to slightly up the size of the symptoms schematic to make the text slightly more legible. Also, don't end captions that aren't complete sentences with periods. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:53, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It depends on someone's thumbnail size settings, but I have slightly enlarged the default thumbnail size for this image to make the captions legible. Thanks for pointing this out. Graham has already exterminated the stray period. JFW | T@lk 10:38, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.