Talk:Fish allergy/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: Bibeyjj (talk · contribs) 13:25, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David notMD! I'm happy to take up the review of this article. From a general glance, it looks good, so I will try to review the article within the week. Thanks! Bibeyjj (talk) 13:25, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Summary

To summarise the points made below, this article is currently very close to meeting GA standards. The main issues are the remaining wordings and syntax, and the lack of inline citations for many statements. Further information on cross-contamination, more Wikilinks, and a few more relevant images would also be useful extras. The article is generally well-written, has the correct amount of detail, and existing references are from reputable sources. I'm sure that the necessary changes to the article can be made soon, so I have put the review on hold pending these minor improvements. Thanks! Bibeyjj (talk) 20:30, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since the initial review, significant improvements in spelling and grammar, referencing, and images have been made. I am happy that the article now meets WP:GAN/I#PASS. Congratulations to David notMD for improving this article to GA standard! Bibeyjj (talk) 21:23, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, too, for your contributions toward improving the article. David notMD (talk) 01:22, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Criterion 1

1a. Fail. A number of minor issues that need to be considered and/or resolved. More Wikilinks would also be appreciated (although these are not essential). Whilst there are also many well-written sections (such as "Mechanisms"), I will list some suggested changes. These are only minor, and should be sorted easily. Bibeyjj (talk) 20:17, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Signs and symptoms": death is not a symptom.
"Eating fish": the punctuation around "tropomyosin" should probably be changed to commas.
"'Hidden' allergen - a fish parasite": it would be preferable to just state "Fish parasites" in the subheading, and mention the concept of "hidden allergens" in the text; the second sentence is very long, and should be split into 2 sentences for ease of reading.
"Exercise as a contributing factor": the title is quite long, and potentially should just state "Exercise", with the idea of it just contributing being in the first sentence; consider the length of the 3rd sentence.
"Treatment": the 4th sentence on Epipen usage should be cleaned up, avoiding the term "i.e.".
"Prognosis": it would be appreciated if there are any statistics for how common it is for the allergy to go away in adulthood; it would also be good to state any causes of the poor prognosis if data is available (such as well-referenced theories).
"Ingredients intentionally added": the last sentence on EU regulations should be broken into 2 sentences for clarity; I'm not sure if the dash after "1169/2011" is necessary, but if not then it should be omitted.
- Bullets 1-5 and 7-8 addressed. For "Prognosis" (#6), the two existing refs and a third one that was not cited only stated that fish allergy tends to be lifelong, or "is usually permanent," but with no mention of statistics. I added information and a ref about adult onset. David notMD (talk) 16:58, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1b. Pass. Follows "Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles" "Diseases or disorders or syndromes". Follows all other relevant guidelines on style. Bibeyjj (talk) 19:54, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Criterion 2

2a. Pass. References are all formatted correctly. Bibeyjj (talk) 18:54, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2b. Pass. References are from primary research (all journals), and reliable secondary sources (organisational websites and journals). The balance of references is skewed towards primary research, and it would be preferable in future to gain more secondary and tertiary sources. Bibeyjj (talk) 19:03, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The journal articles are not primary research, for example, reports on individual clinical trials, but are rather reviews, systematic reviews and meta-analyses. These comply with Wikipedia's standard for medical/health references: WP:MEDRS. David notMD (talk) 21:40, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2c. Fail. Reference coverage is not comprehensive. There are a variety of sentences spread across the article that remain unreferenced. Particularly, "Signs and symptoms", "Allergic response", "Non-allergic intolerance", and "Epidemiology" need a greater coverage of inline citations to demonstrate which studies information came from. Until then, it can only be assumed that information comes either from an unknown source, or is pure original research. I am sure that current references can be reused, using more inline citations to demonstrate the sources of information. Bibeyjj (talk) 19:18, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Signs and symptoms" and "Non-allergic response" supported by adding more use of each sections' existing refs. Non-allergic also needed text revision. A sentence from Epidemiology ("Strong predictors...") was deleted because the sentence had been carried over from Egg allergy when this article was created; no supporting refs were found for fish allergy. The "Allergic response" section was partially re-referenced. Although the wording and references has been adapted from existing articles Food allergy, Milk allergy and Egg allergy a close read of the references found some of them to be of questionable reliability and/or not supportive of the text. If this nomination achieves GA with the replacing references, next step will be to improve the other allergy articles that have the flawed text and referencing. [Not original research on my part, as I am biochemist by training and career, not immunologist nor allergist.] David notMD (talk) 12:20, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2d. Pass. As far as I can tell, there is no plagiarism present. As content is well-referenced, significant copyright violations have been avoided. Bibeyjj (talk) 19:46, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Criterion 3

3a. Pass. Clearly comprehensive of the major aspects of the topic, discussing all of the relevant parts suggested by the Medicine Manual of Style. I note that there is a lack of information on cross-contamination. Having seen past edits, I agree that full detail on the usefulness of prevention measures on cross-contamination would not be appropriate or relevant. However, I do think that it would be worth clearly mentioning this in the article. Bibeyjj (talk) 20:22, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Subsection on cross-contact added, with reference. David notMD (talk) 22:43, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

3b. Pass. I really like how the topic tends to be approached. Where more nuanced or complex terms are used, a brief definition is nearly always given. A good example of this is the definition of "histamine" in "Non-allergic intolerance" leading even a novice reader to a greater understanding of the mechanism mentioned. All the information presented is relevant to fish allergy specifically, and egg-related content (from the Articles for creation template) has been removed. Bibeyjj (talk) 20:27, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Criterion 4

4. Pass. Clearly clinically neutral. The "Society and culture" section is well-handled to avoid bias, and the effects of laws are well referenced. The mention on the ambiguity of the potentially changing prevalence of fish allergies is good, and well referenced. Bibeyjj (talk) 17:43, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Criterion 5

5. Pass. No major edits in the last 4 months. Bibeyjj (talk) 17:17, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Criterion 6

6a. Pass. The 2 images used are tagged with copyright status. Bibeyjj (talk) 17:26, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

6b. Pass. This is a technical pass. The lead image is very good, giving an impression of the main mechanism of allergic reaction. I appreciate that images of allergic reactions to fish are very limited. I am not as keen on the image of the allergen information on packaging - whilst it has a useful caption, fish is not actually included in the list (a minor issue). It may also be nice to have an additional image of Anisakis, and a generic allergic response to provide more graphicl information. Bibeyjj (talk) 17:29, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Description of the allergen label changed. There is no image in Commons of a food label showing fish as an ingredient. Image of Anisakis added. Image of hives added. David notMD (talk) 22:14, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Now six images David notMD (talk) 10:02, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Responses

I believe I have addressed all of the comments from the 'Hold" on the Good Article review process. David notMD (talk) 17:47, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1a. Pass. The minor issues raised have been resolved successfully. A further read of the expanded article shows no prose, spelling, or grammar issues. Bibeyjj (talk) 21:06, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2b. I agree that much of the cited journal literature is systematic reviews and some meta-analyses (secondary research). This complies with WP:MEDRS. Bibeyjj (talk) 21:10, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2c. Pass. Referencing has been significantly improved in its comprehensiveness. I understand that many of the unreferenced sections, and those with less reliable references, came from other articles, so will look into this. Bibeyjj (talk) 21:13, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

3a. The cross-contamination section is really helpful! Bibeyjj (talk) 21:14, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

6b. The new images are very helpful, particularly those of Anisakis and the hives allergic reaction. These images also comply with the preceding criteria. Bibeyjj (talk) 21:16, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.