Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Diabetes mellitus/archive1

Diabetes mellitus
This is a great article about a very important disease. Captain Jackson 01:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC]]
 * Support Tobyk777 05:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Object, for a number of reasons:
 * Most of the relevant content is there, but there is a lot of repetition which would be solved by splitting off marginally relevant material to subarticles, keeping the focus on a general overview on chronic hyperglycaemic states (the unifying characteristic of all myriad forms of diabetes), its classification and therapy.
 * I would prefer to stick to the outline for medical articles as given on WikiProject Clinical medicine: first signs & symptoms, then diagnostic approach, then classification & pathophysiology, then treatment, then epidemiology, history, references and external links. This has worked well on many other articles.
 * This is a chronic disease with numerous complications, and multidisciplinary care (GPs, specialist nurses, podiatrists, endocrinologists, ophthalmologists, vascular and orthopaedic surgeons, cardiologists) is taking off slowly. Much of this is lacking. JFW | T@lk  12:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. I think the article needs more pics. Brandmeister 13:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Note that pictures are not a requirement for a featured article, and other than a patient with diabetes, I can't think of how we could add more pictures. Captain Jackson 14:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd like more pics tbh, most of the wiki links in the article have suitable pics. --PopUpPirate 22:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Object. This article is as JDWolff points out, somewhat disorganized. It is also more or less in the nature of an intro with pointers. Recently, most of the material on Type 1 and on Type 2 was removed to separate articles. What's left is insufficient for the Average Reader to appreciate (even at an overview level) as the required contexxt is largely missing. See Talk for extensive discussions on this point. As noted, much of hte information is accurate, a good bit of it (but not enough) is here. If it were reorganized as indicated, I could support it. ww 08:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)