Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Multiple sclerosis
Partial self-nomination. This is an article we've worked on at the Medicine Collaboration of the Week, and the topic certainly merits a featured-standard article. It has been nominated before. We've been working hard on this article and feel it has improved significantly. All the objections from the previous nomination have been addressed. --WS 10:46, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
- Objct. While there is much in this article that is very good, I found the opening paragraphs too technical: they read as if written by medical experts for medical experts. While the use of jargon is an ongoing problem with all medical articles, I found it a little disappointing because further down in the article this problem is handled far better, & often successfully. But if these paragraphs are re-written to solve this, & perhaps a few other tweaks made to the body of the article, I'd be happy to support this article. -- llywrch 17:48, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
- That is probably due to the fact that most of the article has been written by medical doctors and students :-) I simplified the first paragraph a little, added some more explanations, especially about myelin and I think most of the lead must be clear and not too difficult to read now. Do you think it needs more changes? It would be a great help if someone with a non-medical background would have a look at it. What tweaks would you like to see done to the body of the article? --WS 18:20, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
- I've rewritten the lead and would be interested in your thoughts on it. Also, if you had specifics which could be addressed in the body we would love to work on them. :) InvictaHOG 00:45, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
- Maybe it would be better if, from simply reading the first paragraph, the casual, non-medical reader, could get an idea of the concrete consequences of that illness, before going on to explain demyelinisation. David.Monniaux 08:23, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
- I've redone the introduction to place clinical manifestations and outcomes before pathophysiology. Let us know if this is more appropriate. InvictaHOG 12:47, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
- The article is very interesting... but, shouldn't the prognosis before the treatment? (Also,n beware of jargon in titles. Not everybody may know what a "prognosis" is.) David.Monniaux 22:02, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
- As per our template in the clinical medicine project we list prognosis after treatment, since response to treatment often affects the prognosis. However, if you think that things would be better in a different order, feel free to come discuss changing the template in more detail! InvictaHOG 02:32, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
- Support — I really do like this article, and found it very easy to read. I would like to congratulate all who have worked on it. This article deserves featured article status. I would like to encourage the contributors to engage on a scavenger hunt for more pictures, though. The long chunks of text, even though they are very well written, could do with a little descriptive decoration. --Gareth Hughes 13:42, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
- I've added two images InvictaHOG 02:32, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
Object. The image Image:MS inflammation.jpg has no source or copyright information.--Carnildo 20:00, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
- How embarrassing. It has been removed pending confirmation. I've added an image and am working on another - I agree it would be nice to have more!
- Support. Immense improvement. Very realistic as to how much the casual reader will comprehend. Should be featured. JFW | T@lk 02:08, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
- Support. It is well-written and has improved much. *drew 02:56, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
- Please use 'MS' on every occasion after you introduce this abbreviation at the top. Spell out numbers less than 10. Consistent approach to the placement of reference numbers is required. There must be a space after each. If you have to have a space before, insert a non-breaking space to avoid overhang. Tony 14:13, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
- I have replaced the numbers and fixed the reference links. I kept the first mention of multiple sclerosis in each section and replaced the rest with MS. Thanks for the help! InvictaHOG 17:09, 14 October 2005 (UTC)