Talk:Solar urticaria/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hi, I am reviewing this article for GA and will make some comments below. In general, the article is quite interesting but somewhat confusing. I am a general reader with no special knowledge of this topic. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

These are general comments about the article, taken from the lead, that I could not find a further explanation for in the article.

"in which exposure to ultraviolet radiation, or sometimes even visible light, induces a case of urticaria or hives." So this occurs even when the body is clothed and has nothing to do with whether the skin is covered?
~~What is "physical urticaria" vs. "urticaria"? The article would benefit if it had a simple explanation of urticaria and then how this condition differs.~~
Why is the classification controversial? What has made the disease hard to classify? Because there are so few cases?
"The agent in the human body responsible for the reaction to radiation, known as the photoallergen, has not yet been identified."
"which confirms the presence of an abnormal sunburn reaction" I don't think you explain what this in in the article.
"The agent in the human body responsible for the reaction to radiation, known as the photoallergen, has not yet been identified." Absent from the body of the article is the fact that the first case was diagnosed in Japan in 1916. In fact, there is no discussion of worldwide incidence.
~~UVB, UV, UVA - these initials are used but not defined.~~
~~Desensitization, Pitch need disambiguation.~~

"Classification"

"Another classification distinguishes two types. The first is a hypersensitivity caused by a reaction to photoallergens located only in people with SU; while the second is caused by photoallergens that can be found in both people with SU and people without it." What is the significance of this? What are the differences between these two groups in the manifestation of the disease.
Please see WP:JARGON. The explanations in the article use too many techical terms that are not explained.

"Symptoms"

I think this section could be expanded to convey a more elaborate description of the symptoms. Also, the difference between presumable "lighter" cases where there is just itching to the more serious "lead to light-headedness, headache, nausea and vomiting". It says this is caused by lack of fluids. Are there not differences in the severity of the cases, or are they all the same?
~~"Polymorphous light eruption (PMLE) is the easiest disease to mistake for solar urticaria because the locations of the lesions are similar." What are the locations of the lesions?~~ The only difference is possible lesions on the face?

"Differential diagnosis"

This section could be expanded more to describe the differences more clearly.

"Treatment"

Again, more explanation of jargon used is needed. For example, in explaining the role of antihistimines, more of the mechanisms can be described.
"For prevention, phototherapy can be used. Through this exposure to the certain form of light or UV radiation, the patient can build up a tolerance and outbreaks can be reduced. This type of treatment is generally conducted in the spring. However, the benefits of this kind of therapy only last for two to three days." Is it conducted in the spring in all countries? If the benefits only last two to three days, is it feasible? What kind of situations is this phototherapy carried out?

"Epidemiology"

~~This only considers the United States~~.
"In the United States, only about 4% of patients with photosensitive disorders are reported to have been diagnosed with solar urticaria." How common are photosensitive disorders?
" since its first documented case in 1916, over one hundred other instances of the disease have been reported." It is not mentioned that the first documented case was in Japan. Is there a description of this first case?

"General" In the article, the reader never gets a sense of what the patient of this disease experiences. Is this a disease that makes life difficult? How to patients deal with it? Can they lead a normal life? Do they have a normal life span? The above are only general example. This is potentially a very interesting article but needs to be rounded out with more complete explanations and details filled in. I will put the article on hold, if you want to try to address these issues. I am willing to leave it on hold as long as you are actively working on the article.

—Mattisse (Talk) 20:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article has been much improved. Considering it is such a rare disease, you have done a good job in information gathering and sourcing. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Final GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): Well written b (MoS): Follows MoS on relevant issues
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): Well referenced b (citations to reliable sources): Sources are reliable c (OR): No OR
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): Covers major areas b (focused): Remains focused on the topic
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: Neutral
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.: Stable
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:

Good job. Congratulations!

—Mattisse (Talk) 17:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]