Wikipedia:Peer review/Diffuse panbronchiolitis/archive1

Diffuse panbronchiolitis
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I feel it has the potential to become a featured article.

Thanks,  Rcej (Robert) –  talk  05:59, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Rcej, I'll give this a going-over for prose and MOS-compliance. I won't be much help on content accuracy, you might want to recruit someone from WP:MED to review specifically for that. Will take me a few days. Sasata (talk) 22:53, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool. Thx ;)  Rcej (Robert) –  talk  05:23, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

1st pass through comments - I read up the end of "Pathophysiology", and the refs. More later. Sasata (talk) 03:30, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "Diffuse panbronchiolitis (DPB)[1] is" what are you citing here? If it's the abbreviation, it's unnecessary


 * inflammatory lung disease" - the MOS says to avoid consecutive wikilinks like this, and I think most readers will already be familiar with lung and disease. Perhaps link lung disease?


 * "The term "diffuse" refers" the use of quotes and italics is redundant


 * "to the lesions which appear" which -> that


 * bronchioles is linked twice in the lead paragraph


 * is there a good link for nodule?


 * link incidence


 * "Obstructive respiratory functional impairment, synonymous with emphysema; wheezing, reminiscent of bronchial asthma; and coughing with sputum production that resembles chronic bronchitis can all be found with DPB." I'm not found of the awkward construction of this sentence-it sets up a list before it tells the reader that a list is coming.
 * ✅ Ce'd.


 * "describes disease-inspired inflammation" inspired is an interesting choice of word here (I see it used later too)
 * ✅ Axed.


 * "life threatening" needs a hyphen


 * "The major histocompatibility complex (MHC) is a large genomic region found in most vertebrates that is associated with mating and the immune system." Associated with mating? How so?
 * ✅ Removed cupid ;)


 * second paragraph of "Cause" needs a citation


 * "putative" - rather than link to wikt, how about just substituting a more common word?


 * I think "on the chromosome" is more grammatical than "at the chromosome"


 * neutrophil granulocytes should be linked earlier than they are now


 * link allele


 * make sure there's a non-breaking space in the short form binomials to avoid ugly line breaks


 * I think some of the two-sentence paragraphs could be combined with others


 * "inflammation is leukotriene B4 (LB4)" there's no need to define an abbreviation if it isn't used later


 * "frequency of Adult T-cell leukaemia" is adult supposed to be capitalized?


 * jumping to the refs:
 * ensure that the journal names are consistently abbreviated, or not. Personally, I think full journal titles are good for an encyclopedia, where average readers might not know what "Am J Respir Crit Care Med" means, but it's your call.


 * be consistent on whether the journal dates are given as (month year) or just (year)
 * ✅ Added month when it was given.


 * make sure the journal titles consistently capitalized in title case (eg. see "Canadian respiratory journal : journal of the Canadian Thoracic Society")


 * need consistency with author presentation (eg. "Chen Y, Kang J, Li S" vs. "Ryu, J. H.; Myers, J. L.; Swensen, S. J.")


 * there must be a better way to format the several OMIM citations… I think we need to see the title, author, publisher, date last updated, and accessdate
 * ✅ These of course are multi-sourced webpages, so the creators of the page aren't specifically journal contributors. I stuck with title/OMIM number/accessdate.


 * dab to sinus needs fixing


 * I'll still need a day or so to get all of these standardized. I'm falling in love with Citation Bot.. ;)  Rcej (Robert) –  talk  08:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Finished this round! And this is officially my 10,000th Wikipedia edit! ;)  Rcej (Robert) –  talk  07:13, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Congratulations, you're no longer a newbie! The refs are looking spiffy. I read through the rest of the article a few days ago, and made a few corrections myself, but it looks to be broadly compliant with the MoS. I'll read through it again with a finer-toothed comb in the next couple of days and see if can find some more prose nitpicks. You might consider placing a request at WP:MED to see if anyone from there could take a look at content; FAC tends to be very tough on med-related articles (for good reason) and I've seen them quickly go down in flames, so the more eyes you can get on this beforehand, the better. Sasata (talk) 04:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * After we are finished here, I'll seek the Medics! ;)  Rcej (Robert) –  talk  04:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

More comments Sasata (talk) 17:49, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * have you given thought to removing the citations from the lead? Everything there is cited later, right?


 * caption "A detailed diagram of the human respiratory system" - "detailed" is subjective; I'm sure to an expert it's a highly simplified diagram


 * dab incidence


 * "It was initially considered to be a distinct new disease in the early 1960s, and was formally named "diffuse panbronchiolitis" in 1969." This information does not appear later in the article, but it should (is there enough info to warrant a "History" section?) I think a citation to the first paper to use the term would be appropriate (not in the lead, in a history section)
 * ✅ History section, but not a lot of meat on that bone for history..


 * "Prevalence in Japanese and Koreans was first described in 1983 and 1992, respectively.)" Not sure that this tidbit belongs in the lead…
 * ✅ Axed.


 * "production of mucus).[5][2][8][9]" a minor detail, but the citations should be in numerical order (check throughout for other instances). While we're here, have a look at the FAC talk page for some reviewer opinions about citations in the lead, and the use of multiple citations. Sasata (talk) 19:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ Will study over citation and retool reffing ASAP.  Rcej (Robert) –  talk  08:33, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * the last bit of the "Classification" section sounds like a differential diagnosis
 * ✅ Split out.


 * watch out for overlinking: things like oxygen, blood, tissues, bacteria, viruses, kidneys, look like low-value bluelinks; for example, "… via chemotaxis (the attraction of …" note that the piped link to attraction redirects back to chemotaxis! I'd suggest reviewing the links carefully throughout, and removing those that say a grade 12 student would probably know about.


 * "…dilation (enlargement) of the bronchiolar passages." dilation has already been glossed in the previous section


 * "antigen presenting" needs hyphen


 * "which the amino acids alanine and glycine are present, respectively, at positions 665 (ALN665) and 687 (GLN687)" the three-letter codes for alanine and glycine are ala and gly, respectively; please check the source to see if something is mixed up here
 * ✅ My bad ;)


 * "This also strongly supports the idea that genes directly involved in HLA contribute to causing DPB." Be very careful about emphatic wording ("strongly suggests") that is sourced to primary research (they'll rip ya to shreds at FAC for stuff like this)… does one of the reviews corroborate this conclusion? Would "stongly suggest" checking throughout the article for similar instances where primary research is cited.
 * ✅ Removed.


 * "In some cases of DPB, bacteria such as Pseudomonas aeruginosa inspire the proliferation" there's that word "inspire" again ;)


 * "is the leukotrienes." is -> are


 * "…from essential fatty acids, that play a role" that->which (which typically follows a comma)


 * "Elevated levels of IgG and IgA (classes of immunoglobulins) may be indicated" indicated has a specific meaning in medicine (see the example in WP:MEDMOS), and I think its use here is potentially confusing


 * "This is advised" watch for wp:weasel


 * "period lasting longer than 2 or 3 years" spell out #'s less than 10, says MoS


 * link oxygen therapy


 * "DPB now has a much longer life expectancy" individuals with DPB have a much longer…


 * "Rarer cases of DPB, being those in individuals" noun +ing (next sentence too)


 * "Long-term treatment in DPB reportedly denotes that an individual with the disease has been or will be treated…" I'm not sure if you're subtly implying something with the phrase "reportedly denotes" ?


 * "Allowing a temporary break from erythromycin therapy in these instances has been suggested to reduce the possibility" somewhat awkward construction with passive voice

Just noting that my concern from two years ago that modern sources do not treat COPD as a generic designation (as is quite clear by the COPD article itself). It would appear the generic which is used on en: is Obstructive lung disease. Circéus (talk) 02:06, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ COPD
 * I'd say that opening the "Classification" section with "DPB is similar to many chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases.", though an improvement, displays the exact same issue of misrepresentation of COPD I raised originally. Circéus (talk) 12:01, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * How about now?  Rcej (Robert) –  talk  08:14, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I will have to redo this section :)  Rcej (Robert) –  talk  08:33, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, its going to take a bit longer to straighten out than I thought! A bit overwhelmed by my large number of sources...what was I thinking? ;)  Rcej (Robert) –  talk  02:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I got rid of 7 sources that were unnecessary, and reduced/reallocated citations throughout the article. We are finished with round two!  Rcej (Robert) –  talk  05:59, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Check out Ucucha's new script (see here) that identifies duplicate links; there's a few left in the article. I'll make a final read-through in the next few days, but I think my work here is mostly done! Sasata (talk) 19:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I CBotted them out ;)  Rcej (Robert) –  talk  08:14, 10 October 2011 (UTC)