Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Cochrane update/August 2017

The sodium chloride article doesn't include information from Graudal et al 2011 (22071811). There is no update tag so this entry was an error by the bot apparently. Looks like it belongs on Health effects of salt where there is an entry on another Cochrane review. I can add Graudal et al 2017 to Health effects of salt. JuanTamad (talk) 01:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks. JenOttawa (talk) 01:22, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * JuanTamad I started working from the bottom of the page, but please feel free to move around anywhere on the page. Chances that we are editing the same article again are going to be slim!! JenOttawa (talk) 01:27, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Not sure
...if the bot/script is working properly. A few of the 'updated' reviews are already in the articles. I found a newer review than what was identified for the placenta article. If you pay me a ton of money (with benefits), I bet I could get the bot/script fired. Thanks for all that you do to improve the encyclopedia. The Very Best of Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉  22:49, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi from the person that's currently running the bot! I'd also like a ton of money with benefits, please, but as we're all just volunteers here that seems unlikely. ;-) Some of the entries on this page might have already been sorted out (mark them with done and they'll be archived by the bot), but if there are cases where the bot is missing the updates, please give me the links and I'll look into it - or if you can spot a bug in the Python code, then please let me know and I'll update it! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:17, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I like snakes but don't know Python. I can't mark the tasks with done because I'm the one who updated the articles with the most recent updates before you let your bot loose. What I mean to say is the new, suggested updates already exist in those articles. For example, take a look at what I added to the listing of Placenta. Your bot suggested an article that was not as up-to-date as the ref I found. I can't spare the time correcting referencing problems of out-dated-references if the problem doesn't exist. I suppose I preemptively add up-to-date references. Here is another snag. Your bot suggests updates to replace older references, right? I looked at a few and found that the newer references cannot be compared to the older ones because the research is not equivalent. It's sorta like replacing apples with oranges. How is the equivalency of one article to another determined? Listen, what you are doing is better than not doing it at all. I just hope other editors take advantage of what you have done for them. I'm pretty good at searching Cochrane and so probably won't be coming back to the page listing the updates. I am a better 'searcher' than your bot. I have an idea! You should put those updates on the talk pages of the articles. That would make a lot more sense. I do it all the time. I go to talk pages to see if a reader or editor has left a reference there. That is where editors look-not here. Think about it. And when that job pops up, I'm running right over you to be first in line. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉  23:35, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * ..postscript. I get my references hacked up by other editors all the time. I have a fan club that changes the referencing. Any update tags that I have added disappear when references are reformatted in my articles. This won't work for me. Maybe others. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉  23:38, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The bot looks through the references in the article to see if they have been marked as 'updated' on pubmed, that's all. It can't judge whether it's an apple vs an orange, it just looks for a reported update. This is why it reports the potential update to this page, rather than trying to make the edit directly to the article - and why those suggestions then need checking by a human, and then updated in the article if needed. It shouldn't report references that have already been updated, though - the cases of those here should be because the reference has been updated after the bot ran - so if you spot cases like that then please let me know. Also, if there is anything that the bot can do better here to help people improve the articles, then please say so and I'll look into it. And posting updates on the talk page of the article seems like a good idea - thoughts? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 00:36, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * This is only for Cochrane reviews. They do regular updates of their reviews. Thus the next version matches the question in the prior one. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 00:44, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * DJ, this wasn't the case for the article flagged for updating in the Placenta article. A more recent update was available that the updating bot missed. This probably isn't typical and I might have stumbled onto an exception. When I update an article (a slightly different task), I do the Cochrane search on the topic and find the update myself rather than combing through a list made by a bot like this one. That way, I skip the whole task of evaluating what the bot has discovered. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉  08:11, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes it is not perfect. This edit was an error by the bot. The bot has now been improved not to make this mistake. Or are you refering to something different? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 09:27, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking a look at the project Barbara. I will discuss this with Mike and take a closer look to make sure the bot is working as it is supposed to. We are very grateful that has volunteered to help us set this up.  has also been a big help.
 * I have not noticed any problems with "update needed" tags being removed (without updates being performed), although I could be missing these. Some new editors perform the update but do not add a "done" to this page, or other editors are already updating the articles as Cochrane publishes them but do use our project page (therefore the edit is "done" but not marked). I have performed hundreds of these updates myself, and it is not perfect, but the best system we have so far at ensuring Cochrane updates are flagged and adjusted as necessary in articles. Posting the updates needed to talk pages is a good idea as well, although I find that it is not always that successful right away (e.g:Talk:Influenza_vaccine).
 * We whittled this list down from 300+ updates needed less than a year ago, to all caught up before the holidays. Mike has recently volunteered to help run this bot regularly now that we are caught up. I appreciate your feedback and for your help with the project! JenOttawa (talk) 02:35, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Those updated Cochrane reviews were posted to the vaccine article three days ago. It might take a little longer than that to catch the attention of interested editors. We actually made 300+ updates from 'less than a year ago' in just a few months? That is a good thing. I must edit in an area where updates are not performed so frequently. I monitor the med changes feed once in a while and see that quite a few edits are by mobile users who, "never" improve or update references. Even the edits of experienced editors don't include even adding references. I know that is not the problem we are discussing. Something funny happens to me once in a while. I update a ref and another editor deletes it because they say that it doesn't need to be updated. So this effort doesn't benefit problems like this. I'm beginning to think that I am not experiencing the 'typical' and ideal way of updating and improving references. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉  08:21, 7 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your kind and thorough reply. I am also grateful to for his time and use of expertise that I certainly don't have. You are right about updates being listed on the talk page right away-and the incorporation of those updated articles. If you are incorporating hundreds of new Cochrane references then you deserve a lot more than a barnstar and these updates will improve medical content. As for new editors, well...I remember starting to edit medical articles and didn't even know what a review article was. Listen, I hope this whole effort works and I intend to help it along. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉  08:10, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Can you do this?
When there is an update to an article tagged on its talk page as being in the WikiProject Women's Health can I get those updates? I think I could focus on one small area related to Women's Health and you could consider it delegated. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉  00:09, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, I will do my best to send you those that I notice. The bot is set to check for new updates on the 1st of the month. Thanks for offering to helpJenOttawa (talk) 01:35, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't it be great to have these sorted out and sent to interested editors? I know a few that stick to a certain 'genre' like psychology or biochemistry that might like this. There are those who have worked hard to bring certain articles to FA and like to watch for updates. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉  01:41, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Good idea. This is what is starting to happen with our newly launched project (list of Cochrane reviews not presently in WP). The lists I (and a volunteer) are compiling are for specific editors who have expressed interest in these fields. Now that we have caught up on the updates, we only expect a handful a month. I will keep an eye on the list as it grows again.JenOttawa (talk) 01:49, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Tell the Cochrane bot
..that if it sees the word "withdrawn" in the title of any article, ignore it. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉  00:09, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks. Sorry this was confusing. The bot was updated before the Jan 1st run to do this. Mike has been great! Only the December updates have withdrawn titles, and I am in the process of cleaning them up. :) JenOttawa (talk) 01:33, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * so you don't sleep? Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉  01:42, 9 February 2018 (UTC)