Talk:Osteitis fibrosa cystica/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Congratulations on producing a well-written, interesting article, and thank you for nominating it for a good article review. The following is intended to aid in the further improvement of the article, and is based on the six good article criteria. This is not intended to be an "expert" review - GA is more about general article accessibility and compliance with Wikipedia's in-house style than an expert evaluation of content. If this article passes GA and you wish to develop it further with the help of subject-specialists, I'd suggest an A-Class nomination at WikiProject Medicine's assessment department as the next step. Having said that, any expert input to this review is very welcome.

1. Writing:
 * (a) Prose
 * This is generally of a good standard, although (as with almost any article) would benefit from a copyedit. I spotted a few typos and incomplete sentences - often the result of moving text around. Some specific examples:
 * "Since the developement of early detection and effective treatments for hyperparathyroidism in the Western world OFC is rare." Spelling of development, and ungrammatical sentence
 * "Furthermore, oftentimes, brown tumors, especially when manifested on facial bones, can be misdiagnosed as neoplastic." Avoid waffling - if a word can be cut without affecting comprehension, then cut it
 * "However, it should be noted that FNA is not useful for diagnosing OFC..." Just note it ;)
 * There are lots of "usually", "generally", "often", etc. Be specific where possible, and attribute if necessary - for example, "A study carried out by X in YYYY found that..."
 * (b) Manual of style
 * The lead needs significant attention. From WP:LEAD, "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article," and should contain nothing that isn't already in the main article. A good rule-of-thumb to follow is to imagine that the rest of the article has been erased, leaving only the lead, and ask "would a reader still come away with a basic grasp of the topic?" There are differing opinions about citations in the lead - my view is that in most circumstances these are unnecessary, as they should only be duplicating cited information in the main article body.
 * From WP:MED's Manual of Style, "Wikipedia is written for the general reader. It is an encyclopaedia, not a comprehensive medical or pharmaceutical resource, nor a first-aid (how-to) manual. Although healthcare professionals and patients may find much of interest, they are not the target audience". This means that:
 * All medical terms should be at a minimum wikilinked on their first use, and ideally briefly explained as well. Some are, but many aren't (eg "hyperparathyroidism", "osteoclastic resorption", etc).
 * We should avoid using words like "patient" - it makes the article read as though written for healthcare professionals.
 * All jargon should be avoided (see WP:JARGON) - ie, "...usually presents with bone pain, fractures...", "meticulous resection of the tumor"
 * There is further guidance on WP:MEDMOS that you may find helpful.
 * Short (one or two sentence) paragraphs are discouraged. These should be merged with their surroundings where possible.
 * There is some inconsistency in the date formats in some references - not a major issue, so not a GA blocker, but perhaps worth addressing now rather than later.
 * Words should normally only be wikilinked once, on their first occurrence.

2. Sourcing:
 * (a) References
 * The sources seem to be fine for GA, although:
 * The "Who named it?" reference (29 at time of review) is a little iffy, and needs formatting properly to include publisher and access date at a minimum. I can see why it's been used, and given the on-site bibliography I'll accept it in good faith, but it may not get through FAC. ✅
 * (b) In-line citations
 * These are needed at GA level for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons.
 * There are a few gaps in the article that could do with cites - I'm happy to tag these in the text if it would help, though I normally ask for permission before doing so as some authors object to having their work "fact-bombed" ;)
 * (c) Original research
 * No evidence of OR.

3. Broadness:
 * (a) Topic coverage
 * As mentioned above under 1(b), the article sometimes comes across as a physician's guide to diagnosis and treatment. Part of this is a result of the article balance and layout; as a reader, I'm more interested in the history of its discovery than the specifics of how to test for it or treat it. Perhaps the history section could be moved to a more prominent position, and expanded? Some ideas for additional information might include: How were tests for it developed? Was/is the disease common? Have there been any associated social or ethical issues? Why is it no longer a significant problem in the West, and how did this come about? Is it a problem elsewhere in the world? If so, how is it dealt with there, and what impact does it have?
 * (b) Focus
 * No concerns here, the article stays on-topic throughout.

4. Neutrality:
 * No problems here.

5. Stablility:
 * The article is stable and free of recent edit-warring.

6. Images:
 * (a) Copyright status
 * No issues here.
 * (b) Relevance and captioning
 * The portrait of von Recklinghausen would benefit from a more informative caption to indicate his association with the article subject.✅

As a result of the above review, I have placed the article on hold. This gives editors up to a week to address the issues raised (although if constructive work is underway, the hold period will be extended). I will regularly check back here to mark off those issues that have been satisfactorily resolved and to address any questions and comments you may have.

Feel free to contact me if you have any questions or believe the article is ready for a re-review. All the best, EyeSerene talk 12:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Review by Axl
I'm sad to see the arguments on the Talk page. Hopefully my assessment of the article will help. Axl ¤  [Talk]  11:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Please review WP:MEDMOS. This guideline is very helpful in guiding the development of the article. Also have a look at "Osteochondritis dissecans". That article is a good example of an analogous article that has reached GA status. [Declaration of conflict of interest: I reviewed "Osteochondritis dissecans".] Axl  ¤  [Talk]  11:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The following section titles are recommended:-


 * Classification
 * Signs and symptoms
 * Causes
 * Pathophysiology
 * Diagnosis
 * Prevention or Screening
 * Treatment
 * Prognosis
 * Epidemiology
 * History (not patient history)
 * Society and culture (e.g., stigma, economics, religious aspects, awareness, legal issues) [In my opinion, not essential]
 * Research directions [Also not essential]
 * In other animals [Also not essential]

Currently, the article lacks a "Classification" section.

"Causes" and "Pathophysiology" are the wrong way round. ✅...I think

A "Prevention" section would be helpful.✅

What about "Prognosis"? Axl ¤  [Talk]  11:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The lead section is supposed to be an introduction and summary of the article's content. This will need expansion after the rest of the article is fixed. [There are also a couple of spelling errors that I shall correct.] Axl  ¤  [Talk]  11:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)✅

The section "Signs and symptoms" contains a lot of information that properly belongs in other sections. X-ray findings should be noted in the "Diagnosis" section. The diagram of the parathyroid glands would be better in the "Causes" section. Why is parathyroid carcinoma mentioned here? Genetic mutations belong in the "Causes" section. Axl ¤  [Talk]  11:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The "Causes" section should note that overactive parathyroid glands produce excessive amounts of PTH. Axl ¤  [Talk]  11:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)✅

The "Pathophysiology" section should discuss the mechanism of PTH action. High PTH leads to high calcium. It is the high calcium level that causes symptoms. Axl ¤  [Talk]  11:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)✅

The "Diagnosis" section is reasonable. However I do not understand the meaning of this sentence at the end of the "Radiology" subsection: "Identification symptoms such as muscular generation or reflex can occur through clinical testing of deep tendon reflexes, or via photomotographic examination." Axl ¤  [Talk]  11:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)✅
 * Does FNA refer to biopsy of the parathyroid or the bone? Axl  ¤  [Talk]  11:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)✅

The initial sentence in the "Treatment" section: "In order to treat OFC, it is necessary to treat its underlying causes." is slightly misleading. It is necessary to treat the hypercalcemia first: IV fluids and pamidronate. Then long-term treatment is commenced: bisphosphonates, calcitonin or parathyroidectomy. Axl ¤  [Talk]  11:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)✅

The "Epidemiology" section needs expanding. Axl ¤  [Talk]  11:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)✅

The "History" section is good. Axl ¤  [Talk]  11:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC) ✅

Review update
There's been a fair amount of activity on the article, so I thought it might be a good time to review progress on the points raised above. Listed below are the remaining issues I believe should be addressed before GA promotion (I've tried to combine Axl's and my reviews).


 * Lead - I've had a go at expanding this per WP:LEAD to properly summarise the article and de-mysitfy it a little; please correct any errors etc ;) ✅


 * Jargon and prose sweep - this is mostly good now, but there are still some phrases that could be rendered in less specialist terms, attributed, or reworded to sound less like an instruction manual. For example:
 * From Signs and symptoms; "Parathyroid carcinoma, an uncommon cancer of the parathyroid glands, is generally indicated by serum calcium levels higher than usual..." Perhaps instead something like "Parathyroid carcinoma, a relatively rare cancer of the parathyroid glands, has been found to be indicated by higher blood calcium levels than usual."? This could even be attributed: "In a 1987 paper published in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, Parathyroid carcinoma, a relatively rare cancer of the parathyroid glands, was found to be indicated by higher blood calcium levels than usual."✅
 * From Treatment: "Surgeons must be especially careful to avoid cutting into the tumor in order to prevent proliferation of tumor cells." I think the sentence could be cut, as it seems to be giving technical advice that's beyind the scope of the article. However, a rewording may fix this - your call ;)✅


 * Citations - there are a couple of outstanding tags, although the citations are looking generally fine.


 * Wikilinking - the article is over-linked in places; check that links are made only where they are directly relevant and add value to the article (ie clicking them will enhance a reader's understanding of the subject), and that words are linked on the first occurence only. ✅ (I think)


 * (From Axl) The "Epidemiology" section needs expanding ✅


 * (From Axl) The section "Signs and symptoms" contains a lot of information that properly belongs in other sections. X-ray findings should be noted in the "Diagnosis" section. The diagram of the parathyroid glands would be better in the "Causes" section. Why is parathyroid carcinoma mentioned here? Genetic mutations belong in the "Causes" section.✅


 * History - I'd prefer more information, but if you've made a good-faith search and can't find any, that's OK.

I think that's everything. Keep up the good work, and thank you for your sterling efforts so far. All the best, EyeSerene talk 13:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I have moved the sections around to comply with WP:MOSMED. Please review this guideline. A "Classification" section is still missing. Secondary hyperparathyroidism doesn't cause OFC, as far as I am aware. There is some debate about the validity of tertiary hyperparathyroidism. I would appreciate a specific reference describing OFC resulting from tertiary hyperparathyroidism. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  18:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that - I missed a couple of your outstanding comments above. EyeSerene talk 08:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

GA nomination unsuccessful
The hold period has now expired, and in consultation with User:Axl I have reluctantly failed this article because the points raised above have not been fully addressed. If you believe that we have applied the GA criteria inappropriately, or have any other concerns about the conduct of this review, you can list Osteitis fibrosa cystica on the Good article review page for discussion with other GA reviewers. Alternatively you may wish to address the issues raised above and then renominate the article on the Good article nominations page. Please also feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Regards, EyeSerene talk 10:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, EyeSerene. There are still a number of outstanding problems with the article. I am confident that Strombollii will be able to address these over the next couple of months. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  11:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the patience. The feedback was concise. I too think it will be addressed in time.--JimmyButler (talk) 14:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the reviews, User:EyeSerene and User:Axl. It's unfortune to have failed, but I just haven't found time to work on the article.  It'll be re-listed soon, hopefully. Strombollii (talk) 13:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem, and thanks for your hard work so far. I'm sure you'll get there ;) EyeSerene talk 13:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)