Wikipedia:Peer review/Asthma/archive2

Asthma

 * Previous peer review
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2008.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because the article has been around 2 years since promotion to FA. I was thinking of putting it through a FA review but then I thought a peer review might be a better first step. I was wondering whether any areas need expansion due to changes in technology,treatment and knowledge in this time. I know some areas are lacking citation and I'll work on that ASAP. Just any suggestiongs in general would be appreciated.

Thanks, Ziphon (ALLears) 12:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

This peer review discussion has been closed.

BirgitteSB

 * Lead: Not a proper summary of the article; needs expansion.
 * Signs and symptoms: Avoid the repetition of of the symptoms in the first two paragraphs. Too many parenthetical.
 * What the distinction between "hallmarks of an asthma attack" and "signs of an asthmatic episode" that they should be separate paragraphs? Organization of section is questionable.
 * Despite the severity of symptoms during an asthmatic episode, between attacks an asthmatic may show few or even no signs of the disease This should be last sentence of first paragraph (overview of section) rather than last sentence in the paragraph on sign of severe attacks.
 * Cause:
 * Asthma is caused by a complex interaction of genetic and environmental factors that researchers do not fully understand yet. While it continually reads "genetic and environmental" the environmental subsection is presented before the genetic ones.  Change to match.
 * ✅ Ziphon (ALLears) 11:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * As with other complex diseases, many genetic and environmental factors have been suggested as causes of asthma, but not all of them have been replicated. Replicated? Replicated in controlled studies, or in isolation of other factors?
 * The hygiene hypothesis is a theory about the cause of asthma and other allergic disease, and is supported by epidemiologic data for asthma . . . This should be moved out "overview section" and put under the "environmental section"
 * ✅Ziphon (ALLears) 11:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Environmental sub-section: Bullets points should be converted to prose. This section reads like it is about "juvenile asthma" can it be made more general or if not specify "in children".  Find more info on adults to balance what cannot be generalized.
 * I'll try find some info on adult asthma Ziphon (ALLears) 08:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

✅ I've tried to explain it better. Ziphon (ALLears) 09:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * However, as with all association studies, replication is important before genetic variation (such as a single nucleotide polymorphism, or SNP) in a certain gene is thought to influence asthma This is too technical. Try to explain it better.
 * The CD14 SNP C-159T and endotoxin exposure are a well-replicated example of a gene-environment interaction that is associated with asthma. How about "exposure to endotoxin from bacterial infections"? Try to not require the reading of linked articles to comprehend a sentence.
 * Pathophysiology: Needs an overview paragraph.
 * During an asthma episode, inflamed airways react to environmental triggers such as smoke, dust, or pollen Do we really need to go over examples of "environmental triggers" so shortly after reading that section?
 * inflamed airways . . . The airways narrow and produce excess mucus . . . I don't airways is consistently defined in the same way here. The tissue becomes inflamed and produce mucus, but it is the passages that narrow.
 * The airways of asthmatics are "hypersensitive" to certain triggers, also known as stimuli (see below). In response to exposure to these triggers, the bronchi (large airways) contract into spasm (an "asthma attack").  Yuck on the parenthetical.  Also isn't this a little to introductory for this portion of the article.
 * The normal calibre of the bronchus is maintained by a balanced functioning of these systems, This is the opening of a new paragraph; what systems.
 * Stimuli subsection Rewrite as prose.
 * Pathogenesis subsection Should be either the first or last subsection; or else part of the overview without a titled subsection. Looks like a bulleted section with the bullet points removed.  Make into proper prose.
 * Asmatha and . . . subsections Rewrite as a single subsection called "Coincedencee with other disorders". Add info on eczema and allergies per the following section.
 * Diagnosis: This section is completely lacking in organization and at times internaly repetitive. Needs to be re-worked into something cohesive.
 * The basic measurement is peak flow rates That really doesn't make sense. How is peak flow rate (links to the meter) a "measurement"?
 * Bulleted diagnostic criteria Even more incromprehensible to me. Is this dianosising that a person has obstruction or that the known obstruction is reversable?  What do the the criteria actually mean in lay terms?
 * Prevention: Seems to be about prevention of attacks rather than prevention of asmatha. I would clarify this in overview paragraph mention that attacks can prevented or reduced in severity by medication and aviodence of triggers.  Then make a new subsection called "Preventive medication". Or on second thought cut the section and merge as discussed below.  Also rewrite bullet points in prose. Severely trim the information on air filters and merge into the "Avoidance of triggers" sub-section.
 * Treatment Needs serious re-oranization. The subsection titles are not mutually exclusive and earlier info is repeated.  Bullets --> Prose.
 * The most effective treatment for asthma is identifying triggers, such as pets or aspirin, and limiting or eliminating exposure to them This is either a treatment or a preventaive. Don't repeat this in
 * Medical subsection This is repetative of preventive medications above. Maybe you should cut the preventative section altogether and merge everything into treatment. Is there anything that is really prevents of the disorder? Unless you mean to get into the Hygiene hypothesis, which is not currently covered, it is all really a treatment.
 * Long-acting β2-agonists subsection Quotations are ecessive. Why is this info in it's own subsection?
 * Treatment controversies' Why is this info in it's own subsection?
 * Prognosis: What is the prognosis for adults?
 * most studies show that early treatment with glucocorticoids prevents or ameliorates decline in lung function as measured by several parameters. This does not make sense.
 * Epidemiology: Why are we re-hashing the reisk factors again?
 * Asmatha and athlectics subsection Is this really "Epidemiology" or rather a risk factor and/or trigger?
 * History: This needs to be cut or a lot of work put into writing a comphensive section. Certainly the large quotation is unneeded.

As this was a FA, I jumped right into a detailed review. A quater of the way through I nearly abandoned this as I would not normally put so much time into an article put up for review with such obvious flaws not yet fixed. This needs a lot of work and I hope you really mean to address the issues. Some general issues: Sometimes things are written as if the article is "AsthmaCoincidenceinternallyincomprehensiblediagnosingreversibleasthmaavoidanceorganizationpreventativerepetitive attack"excessive rather than "AriskAsthmaathleticscomprehensivequarterAsthmaAsthmasmatha"; make an effort to clarify that you mean "during an attack" or similar. Often the article focuses rather narrowly on children, more generalized or specifically adult info is much needed. Fact tags need to be taken care of.-- Birgitte SB  20:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)