Talk:Malaria/GA3

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: LT910001 (talk · contribs) 23:00, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'll take this review. I haven't had any part in editing or creating this article. Any other editors are welcome to contribute. LT90001 (talk) 23:00, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note. I've noticed that there are a lot of malaria-related articles and it's quite hard to navigate. I've just created and added Template:Malaria to this page and other relevant pages in this regard, but I haven't made any other edits to the page. LT90001 (talk) 00:51, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Overall this should be a quick and easy pass.

GA summary

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Yes. Minor fixes suggested below, but nothing preventing promotion.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Yes.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	For the most part. One or two uncited sections and an image I have mentioned below.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	See above.
	2c. it contains no original research.	See above.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Certainly.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Yes
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Yes
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Yes
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Checked. One or two flags (noted below) but nothing preventing nomination.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Very relevant.
	7. Overall assessment.	An excellent article.

Specific Comments

Lede, Signs & symptoms

Done

Lede: "the person" -> "a person"

Done. Sasata (talk) 05:13, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Signs & symptoms: "and convulsions." (uncited)

citation moved to end of paragraph (confirmed that source includes convulsions). Sasata (talk) 05:13, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Complications

- Sentence "Possible causes include ... severe anaemia. " is very technical and inconsistent with the easy-to-read language of the rest of the article. Suggest reword.
- Cerebral malaria is mentioned in both complications and signs and symptoms sections.

Lifecycle

- The first half is very easy to read, the second half is difficult to follow.
- Suggest first instance of "merozoite" be wikilinked.
- Suggest new paragraph here: "Other merozoites develop into immature gametes" and then reword like the first half. This part is difficult to follow! (In fact I would go so far to say, the first half is one of the better representations of the malaria lifecycle I've read, so I'd love if the second half was that clear and easy to read)

I wikilinked merozoite earlier, added a paragraph break, and reworded like so. Is it better? Sasata (talk) 23:24, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Much better! LT90001 (talk) 00:45, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recurrent malaria: bracketed term not needed here: "reappear (recur) "

I kept recur and removed reappear, as the former term appears in the following sentence. Sasata (talk) 05:13, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pathophysiology
- One of the characteristic features of malaria infection, which you have mentioned earlier, is the reliability of the tertian and quaternian fever cycles. The putative mechanism for this should be mentioned.

Most sources I've seen do not discuss this, and many suggest that the classic presentation of predictably recurring chills and fever is highly variable, so I'm thinking we shouldn't dwell on the details too much in this broad overview article. Sasata (talk) 18:39, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- This paragraph "Although the red blood cell surface adhesive proteins " is quite specific and I'm not sure what the relevance is. Suggest move to biology section?

Trimmed this paragraph, it's already covered in the daughter article. Sasata (talk) 05:09, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Genetic Resistance

Done

- "It has placed the greatest selective pressure on the human genome in recent history." suggest add "one of the greatest", this is quite a big claim and 'recent history' is quite unspecified.

This sentence has gone through several back-and-forth changes in the history of this article. The source is very definite about this claim, and I don't see any reason why we should also not be: "When malaria's effect on child mortality is considered—and it was probably even greater before antimalarial drugs and other control measures were introduced—it is not surprising that malaria is the strongest known selective pressure in the recent history of the human genome. Malaria is the evolutionary driving force behind sickle-cell disease, thalassemia, glucose-6-phosphatase deficiency, and other erythrocyte defects that together comprise the most common Mendelian diseases of humankind." "Recent history" is not defined by the source. Sasata (talk) 19:06, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All right. However, I do think that this is a big claim to make. The field of population genetics is just beginning. How can we be sure about this statement given all the things we don't know about genomics and pre-recorded disease history in general? Could we reach a compromise by adding "According to a 2005 review..." at the start? LT90001 (talk) 00:38, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, done. Sasata (talk) 05:09, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- "The impact of sickle cell trait on malaria immunity is of particular interest." suggest reword from "particular interest" to "illustrates some of the evolutionary trade-offs that have occured because of endemic malaria", or something similar that introduces the paragraph.

Much better, changed. Sasata (talk) 05:59, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- "Although the shorter life expectancy for those with the homozygous condition seems to be unfavourable to the trait's survival, the trait is preserved because of the benefits provided by the heterozygous form.[33][34]" quite cumbersome to read; suggest reword. For example "seems to be unfavourable to " to " would not sustain"

Changed as suggested. Sasata (talk) 05:59, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Diagnosis

- "Approximately 30% of people ". This group is unspecified. Do you mean "people infected in the last (week)"?

This sentence has been removed. Sasata (talk) 18:45, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- "the presentation" -> "of symptoms"

Added. Sasata (talk) 20:37, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- "which might be elicited by any of the following: ... peripheral blood leukocyte count.[3]" is quite technical and medical. Suggest reword.

How does this sound? Sasata (talk) 20:37, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Much better. LT910001 (talk) 09:31, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Classification section is out of place; suggest this list be transferred to a table and moved up to the 'signs and symptoms' section.

I think this section was formatted this way by Jmh649 to better conform to WP:MEDMOS. Doc, do you have any objections to LT90001's suggestion? Sasata (talk) 20:53, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to leave the section where it is, but the list stands out like a sore thumb in comparison to the high quality discursive form of the rest of the article. LT910001 (talk) 09:31, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prevention

- Should 'vector control' mention the use of spraying mosquito-infected swamps? I believe this was one of the key reasons that the Americas, in particular North America, controlled the spread of malaria.

It used to be in the article, but was removed as it is a (mostly) historical method for mosquito control. This information can be found in the history daughter article, and in mosquito control. Sasata (talk) 05:31, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- This paragraph "Methods used to prevent malaria include medications, ... it could become re-established if conditions revert to a combination that favours the parasite's reproduction.[42]"
  - Does not seem to be supported by the source

Could you be more specific as to what you think is not supported by the source? If you think it's necessary, I can break the reference into short citations and cite each sentence more specifically with page numbers. Sasata (talk) 18:26, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- - "favours" is not consistent with the use of American English.

Made the spelling consistent British English and added a template for this on the talk page. Sasata (talk) 18:26, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- - Source mentions difficulty in removing from low population-density areas.

Added one reason. Sasata (talk) 18:26, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- - Suggest add "high anopheles mosquito population density" to make clear this is not all mosquitoes.

Done. Sasata (talk) 18:26, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- - In conclusion, needs a re-write

Medications

Done

- "sometimes also " -> "also sometimes"

Fixed. Sasata (talk) 05:13, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- "Because most Plasmodium is resistant " suggest add -> "resistant to one or more medications"

Done. Sasata (talk) 05:13, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- "mefloquine is associated with death" sounds pretty serious! suggest "associated with a risk of..."

Added. Sasata (talk) 05:13, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- "and a higher rate of neurological and psychiatric symptoms" suggest remove "and a higher rate of", as this is implied by your list of side-effects.

Done. Sasata (talk) 05:13, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- "visiting areas were " -> "where"

Fixed. Sasata (talk) 05:13, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- "partial immunity" -> "partial resistance"

Done. Sasata (talk) 05:13, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prognosis, Epidemiology, History

Done

- " Chronic infection without severe disease can occur, ... less responsive to Salmonella bacteria and the Epstein–Barr virus.[77]" a little unclear. Do you mean "Chronic infection without severe disease can occur in an immune-deficiency syndrome associated with a decreased responsiveness to ..."?

Yes, reworded as suggested. Sasata (talk) 18:45, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- "Malaria causes widespread anemia during ... to which children are more vulnerable" suggest -> "During childhood, malaria causes..." and reword paragraph accordingly. Here "widespread" I am guessing to mean "systemic", which is tautologous as anaemia is a systemic state anyway. So, suggest remove.

Fixed. Sasata (talk) 18:45, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Will continue latter part of review later today.

Epidemiology

”were Ivory Coast with 86.15“ suggest -> "(86.15)" for consistency

Ok. Sasata (talk) 20:40, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

History

"discovered by Chinese scientist Tu Youyou " suggest add (Tu Youyou and colleagues) or some such; she worked in a team and it would be inaccurate and inadequate to claim she alone did this.

Added. Sasata (talk) 05:13, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Malaria vaccines have been an elusive goal of research" suggest wikilink "Malaria Vaccines"

Have moved the wikilink to earlier. Sasata (talk) 05:13, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Economic impact

"In countries where malaria is common, average per capita GDP has risen (between 1965 and 1990) only 0.4% per year, compared to 2.4% per year in other countries.[125]" suggest reword, integrate brackets and past tense "In the period 1965 to 1990, countries where malaria was common had a GDP that rose..."

Done. Sasata (talk) 05:44, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"and up to 40% of public health spending.[127]" source does not have the year of publication noted.

2003, added. Sasata (talk) 05:44, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Some possible copyright flags on images, eg File:Ronald_Ross.jpg and File:Artemisia annua West Virginia.jpg, but one must assume good faith.
File:Malaria_fever.svg this image has no citations so cannot be verified and/or is OR.

I've removed this. I think it's useful, however, and will try to recreate with sourced data before this article goes to FAC. Sasata (talk) 19:14, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if sourced it would have been a very useful image. LT90001 (talk) 00:46, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice, but is certainly not a requirement of the GA review, if File:5901 lores.jpg could be replaced with a clearer image.

Conclusion

In conclusion, I would say this article is of very good quality. Kind regards, LT90001 (talk) 11:24, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you kindly for taking on this review. I am currently vacationing in a different country, so internet access will be spotty, but I should be able to address your concerns within a few days. Sasata (talk) 15:18, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, there is no rush. Have a lovely vacation, LT90001 (talk) 09:55, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question

LT90001, how many sources have you checked to make sure they are verified? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 17:01, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- See here, for example. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 17:10, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your attention. On every review, as well as completing a survey of all the sources used as they are reported in the article, I check as reading the summaries of about 1/3-1/4 of all citations, paying particular attention to assertions or contentious statements. If the abstracts do not support the text, then I seek a full text article and the relevant section. LT90001 (talk) 02:16, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With the changes that have been made, I would be happy to promote this article to GA status at this time, but will wait several days in the hope that the few remaining quality-based concerns are addressed. LT910001 (talk) 09:37, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I find this article to match the GARC in being well-written and broad, neutral and well-sourced, and without any outstanding issues. I have updated the table above and will make the required changes to promote to GA status shortly. Well done, thanks for bringing this article back up to GA standards, and I wish you well on your wiki-travels. LT910001 (talk) 01:02, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks kindly for your review! Sasata (talk) 01:40, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]