Talk:Syphilis/GA1

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

Reviewer: Sehmeet singh  Talk  17:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:


 * Comment
 * 1) Diagnosis section of article needs some little more work


 * 1) No prognosis section in the article/Prevention topic needs more work


 * As treatment leads to excellent outcomes their is not much to say on prognosis. Prognosis is discussed in the epidemiology section.


 * 1) Epidemiology section is good but try to expand it


 * Great thanks. Will work on it in the next week or so.-- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:32, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I did a little touchup yesterday, unaware that this discussion was ongoing.
 * I hope I did not do anything inadvertent to compromise GA status.
 * Varlaam (talk) 18:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments: another set of eyes

 * 1) I would agree, overall this article is well written and clear in its presentation of information.
 * 2) The information presented is verifiable and accurate. With regards to the epidemiology section, I agree that it could be expanded. I not sure if all statements are up to date, for example: "Since the year 2000 ... Primarily among men who have sex with men."  More current literature is indicating that the rising rates are not necessarily limited to this group, I am providing a link to a current report relating to increased rates and concerns in the province of Alberta, Canada [] .  Although this reports focuses on one region in Canada, national discussions reflect similar current trends and these may be similar in other regions of North America and possibly other developed countries.  This may be something to research.  I realize epidemiology is a difficult area to write on, as when stats become available - they are often already dated.
 * 3) As to the prevention section and its expansion, the above report also discusses this issue - prevention and possible strategies.
 * 4) As to section on treatment, prognosis and outcomes could tie in here very nicely. Here is another web link that provides good quality information that is readable, current, and has a good reference list [].  On this website, under Reference - pediatric/congenital syphilis  is discussed as well as other types you have mentioned.  It has good reference lists that can help lead to information in other places.
 * The problem I have with the emedicine page is they present American data as if it applies globally. I am trying to keep the epidemiology section on this page more global in nature with the specific countries dealt with in depth on the subpage.

Overall, this is a good article and with a few additions/edits, I think it would be suitable for Good Article nomination/status. --4tiggy (talk) 00:29, 31 July 2011 (UTC) (a newbie editor, with a health-care background)
 * 1) This article has evolved with stable content and has changed primarily when content is edited... clearly its creation is a result of hard work and research.
 * 2) NPOV and coverage is represented in the article's broad scope of information and its unbiased presentation, leaving the reader informed on the subject matter.
 * 3) Images are presented in the appropriate sections and illustrate thieir associated captions.
 * 1) Further adding Lead section has no inline citations and ref no 24 is DEAD LINK Sehmeet singh  Talk  13:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC) ✅


 * GA criteria do not prohibit dead URLs. In fact, WP:DEADREF basically prohibits editors from deleting citations merely because the URL isn't working today.
 * Also, inline citations are not necessarily required in the lead. There is no rule that says the very first appearance of a fact in an article must be accompanied by an inline citation.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Acoording to WP:DEADREF either you replace the dead link with convenient proper source or you delete it with tag and regarding lead section third paragraph needs citations badly so that it can maintain text-source integrity.  Sehmeet singh  Talk  04:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The lead is supported by the body of the text with refs supporting the lead found in the main body of the text. Will fix the broken url thanks. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 20:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, while anyone can change any citation whenever s/he wants, DEADREF basically prohibits the removal of URLs solely because the URL is dead unless you've determined that the link isn't archived—which cannot be reliably determined until the link has been dead for as long as two years. You cannot remove the link (step 5) until you've have completed step 2, "Check for web archives".  The exact text of step 5 says:  "If the source material does not exist offline, and if there is no archived version of the webpage (be sure to wait ~24 months), and if you are unable to find another copy of the material, then the dead citation should be removed".  Since I'm the person who drafted that text, I can assure you that "and" actually means and in this sentence:  You may not delete the citation unless all three conditions have been fulfilled.   WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Attempted to address the concerns
I have attempted to address the concerns of scope. Any further comments? Have I missed any concerns? Not sure what was deemed original research? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * From my point of view there is now no concern about article it is a good research and a time devoted hardwork. If there is concern from any one they can comment now and this article will be good article in 1 or 2 days Sehmeet singh  Talk  06:55, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Question

 * 1) syphilis causes respiratory distress in neonates?
 * It can cause many symptoms. Respiratory distress was not singled out in this text http://books.google.com/books?id=I3Kh1cNJxyUC&pg=PA86&dq=Neonatal+syphilis&hl=en&ei=_4g4Tp3kCcXKiAKQ76D8Dg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Neonatal%20syphilis&f=false


 * 1) Beside  Argyll Robertson pupils as occular manifestation can there be more also?
 * There are a bunch of ocular symptoms but these are rare http://books.google.com/books?id=u43MTFr7-m8C&pg=PA805&dq=Ophthalmology+Syphilis&hl=en&ei=SIg4Ts3ADaLkiAKkuYn9Dg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Ophthalmology%20Syphilis&f=false


 * 1) Azithromycin is effective in early syphilis ?
 * Yes it can and I have added this to the article.

Sehmeet singh Talk  07:33, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I have added azithromycin. More depth on the other topics you mention would belong in a subarticle IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)