Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Spontaneous cerebrospinal fluid leak/archive1


 * 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 not promoted by Karanacs 13:59, 9 November 2010.

Spontaneous cerebrospinal fluid leak

 * Nominator(s): Basket of Puppies  05:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it has undergone both a peer review and a successful Good Article nomination. I have worked with Ironholds on IRC who suggested many incremental updates which I now believe satisfied the FA criteria. I look forward to working with the FA team on this. Basket of Puppies 05:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Epidural_blood_patch.svg appears to be a derived work, have you copyright details of the work it is derived from? Both links for File:Meninges-en.svg are dead, and the copyright cannot be verified! Are there any ethical issues regarding the use of File:Bopbrain.jpg? Fasach Nua (talk) 06:36, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The Epidural_blood_patch.svg was greated by User:Gurch and the image it is based on is linked the source. I do not have any specific information for the meninges images, but I assume they can be redone with a compatible license if the original links cannot be found. Regarding the image of my brain, I have released this image under the relevant license, but I do not know if there is an ethical issue. While I have taken several biomedical ethics questions I am certainly not neutral, so I will let someone else answer. My feeling, however, is the image is fine as i) it is mine and ii) I remain anonymous due to editing under this pseudonym, thus preserving my privacy. Basket of Puppies  07:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * If you annotate that you are the subject of the MRI, then I would be content that issue has been resolved, my primary concern is patient consent Fasach Nua (talk) 11:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I annotated it in the file talk page, but maybe I should do it elsewhere. Where do you suggest? Basket of Puppies  15:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose: The article mixes many primary sources, with some interesting secondary sources. The change of sourcing from primary to secondary sources is a prioritary work which would need quite a lot of time to rework. As an example in the signs and symptoms section in this version there are 8 different sources of which refs 11, 13, 14 and 17 are great, 12 and 15 are single-case report (with the 15 being used 4 different times) and 16 is a primary study. Most proably the reviews already in the article, or other reviews, could be used to source almost all the article and help avoid overuse of primary sources. In addition I feel that sections are a bit short, however I have to say that I know nothing about this condition so maybe the fact is that there is not much more to say. As a minor comment at some points many different refs are given for a single statement (classification section for example): these kind of sourcing is clearly excessive. I see in the talk page that the author wanted to enphasize the conclussion since it is controverted. However this should be better worked in other way: if all reliable sources now agree in such statement leave only one of the refs. If there was a past or present controversy then it should be commented while saying that sources favour X.--Garrondo (talk) 09:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It is true that a vast majority of the refs in this article are primary sources (published articles in peer-reviewed journals) and only a few are secondary (from neurology textbooks). The textbooks almost directly quote the journal articles and add very little knowledge, but that isn't surprising since the condition is rare and only recently has been well described and better understood and the textbooks simply haven't been updated/evolved to the point where they can accurately describe this condition based on the primary sources. Afterall, journal articles are published much more frequently than textbooks. Would the heavy use of primary sources lead to a FAC failure? Regarding the multiple refs used for certain statements, this is in order to demonstrate that the perception about certain factors of this condition simply is not reality. What might you suggest as how to approach these two issues? Basket of Puppies  15:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * All wikipedia articles should preferebly use secondary sources since an encyclopedia is a tertiary source and should not draw its own conclussions, but summarize the conclussions of others. In the medicine field this is covered by the WP:MEDRS guideline, which I greatly encourage you to read. In summary it states that medical articles should be mainly sourced to secondary articles, which in the field are both text books and reviews in peer-reviewed journals. Primary sources should only be used in very specific cases and with great care. Since you say that the condition has only been studied recently I would recommend reviews in scientific journals, since as you say they are more updated. Schievink, W. I. (2008) is a great example of the kind of sources that should be used. On the other hand I still believe that quantity of content is low for a medical topic. I would recommend you to take a look at several medical FA such as multiple sclerosis or huntington's disease (I have greatly contributed to both) to see the use of secondary sources and depth of coverage expected in a FA. Another very interesting article is Osteochondritis dissecans since it is a rare and mildly studied medical condition, but still I feel that more complete than this article. While I have already stated that I know nothing about SCF I think I am going to read some of the secondary sources in the article to see if my feeling of uncompleteness is accurate.--Garrondo (talk) 07:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have taken a quick look at Schievink, W. I. (2008) and I believe there is a lot of potentially useful info missing in the article which hinders the possibility of it becoming a FA. Some missing info may be: indications suggesting the heritable connective tissue disorder, diagnostic criteria, more coverage of diagnostic methods, info on the conservative treatment... and this only comes from reading a single article. From my point of view this article is not ready yet to be a FA, albeit it has potential.--Garrondo (talk) 07:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * With respect, the issue of connective tissue disorder is stated in the article as it the diagnostic criteria and imaging, in depth. Basket of Puppies  17:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * At least there is no explicit mention of the existence of diagnostic criteria (although info from them may be integrated inside the diagnosis section). Regarding connective tissue: I suppose you refer to this line in the causes section: Various scientists and physicians have suggested that this condition may be the result of an underlying connective tissue disorder affecting the spinal dura.[18][19][13][20] I doubt a single line can be considered an in deph treatment of the issue when in the article commented talk about it almost a whole page. Nevertheless these were only examples directed to point that the article is in general short in coverage in comparison to what is the norm in FA about diseases.--Garrondo (talk) 18:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Driveby comment: Reference formatting needs to be made consistent. Some author initials are followed by fullstops, others aren't. Some sources give page ranges (as they should), others only the first page. Some give pages ranges in abbreviated format (1113–23) others in full (111–121). Some journal titles are given in title case (proper) others in sentence case; same for journal article titles. Sasata (talk) 16:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * A vast majority of the refs are using the template which automatically fills out the references, so I think you're not referring to those. Are you referring to the non-pubmed references, such as the few textbooks I've used? I'll have a look at them.  Basket of Puppies  17:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If they are books you can also use diberri's tool: you paste the isbn and gives you a citation on the same style that pmid references.--Garrondo (talk) 20:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

/ ƒETCH COMMS  /  03:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Quick comments from / ƒETCH COMMS  / 
 * Seems kind of choppy prosewise. Too many short paragraphs and sections.
 * Refs should be in order numerically (I see "[25][8][9]").
 * "between 1992 to 2003" sounds better as "between ... and ..." or "from ... to ...".
 * Templates removed; please respond below reviewer comments and sign your entry. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Procedural side comment: graphical templates such as ✅ are discouraged in FAC (they increase loading time): better simply say "done" and let the reviewer cross the comment if he truly believes that it has been fixed.--Garrondo (talk) 09:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose per Garrondo, and suggest withdrawal and review by WP:MED (noting that the GA review does not inspire confidence that this article is prepared for FAC). There are multiple recent secondary reviews listed in PubMed, yet we find only about a half dozen uses of two of those citations in this article, suggesting that a survey of the literature hasn't been adequately conducted. Also, please see the WP:FAC instructions and remove the templates (above) as they cause FAC archives to reach template limits. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 16:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * With great respect, the article underwent a lengthy peer review by WP:MED editor Delldot, which greatly improved the article. Basket of Puppies  17:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, that is helpful (and reassures me about the cursory GA review), but still doesn't address the use of primary sources. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Several (many) of the references are indeed published in peer-reviewed journals, but they include "literature reviews" within the articles, thus they act as secondary sources. I was talking to a friend who has an MLS (Master of Library Science) and she indicated she disagrees with the Wiki view that a journal article is a primary source as the journal itself edits and reviews the data, much like a textbook. Do you think it's possible that the Wiki position might need updating? Basket of Puppies  18:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Such "minor reviews" at the begining of a primary article can be used sometimes as reviews (if there are no better sources), but most commonly full reviews are much better surveys of the literature. Regarding your question: surely it does not need to be updated: the fact that a source is reviewed is independent of the fact that it is primary: it only means that while it is not self-published as opposed to a web site, it still communicates findings of and individual research group and experiment which should be put into context weighting them with other findings. This weighting can only be properly done in secondary sources. Nevertheless this is not the place or time to discuss this issue. If you really think that it has to be changed you can try, but the change is as plausible as changing one of the 5 pillars of the wiki. Finally I hope you take this withdrawal recommendation in a constructive way, since they are for the better of the article and the encyclopedia. --Garrondo (talk) 18:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I am going to have a chat with the librarians locally and see as to their opinion on a published journal article being considered primary vs secondary, as I just don't see how it differs from a textbook where the results from the studies are simply reported (in fact, one of the neurology textbooks I cited quotes Mokri by name and reports nothing new). I understand you feel this is not to be changed, but I need to check into this for myself. I'll be back. Basket of Puppies  19:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've had a check and you are right- scientific articles in a published peer-reviewed journal is a primary source. Basket of Puppies  19:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You might have found the same info by browsing the talk archives of WP:MEDRS; it was a very well-developed guideline page that received broad review and feedback. GA does not have the same standards wrt WP:MEDRS and survey of the literature that FA has (at least I don't think they do), but nonetheless, all medical articles should use primary and secondary sources correctly, so I still question the GA status of this article and would like to see it depend (except in specific, justified circumstances) primarily on secondary reviews.  I still suggest withdrawing and re-working off-FAC.  21:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I would say this is an adequate GA, but not a FA.--Garrondo (talk) 21:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Withdrawn as FAC Basket of Puppies  21:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Would you need comment on how to procceed towards FA feel free to contact me, since I am quite interested in neurology articles.--Garrondo (talk) 21:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.