Talk:Egg allergy/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: AmericanAir88 (talk · contribs) 20:30, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Good Day, I will take up this review. I hope we can through the process easy and stress free. AmericanAir88 (talk) 20:30, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Opening Comments

Welcome to your first good article nomination. My reviews are all about hearing what you have the say. I am not here to just be a judge. I am here to help you get the title. I format them like a trial where I present my comments and issues and you fix them; Then I do the final verdicts. I look forward to working with you and I wish you the best of luck.

This article starts out very strong and ends very strong. It is very well done with only minor issues. I can see the MIT work you put into this. The middle of the article however could use some work,(mostly making it not plagiarized) but that is what I am here for. AmericanAir88 (talk) 21:21, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Issues

@David notMD: Major Almost all of the "Mechanisms" section is copied from https://www.cpet.ufl.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/ELISA-Handout-2011.pdf and https://worldasthmafoundation.org/asthma-and-allergies. Copy right violations are instant failures and must be resolved immediately.

Oy! I did not create that content. What I did do was copy it almost verbatim from Food allergy (and attributed it, and also copied it into Milk allergy). I will look at the two sources you provided and rewrite/paraphrase the content so that it is no longer a copy/near copy. Once we are in agreement on revision I will also fix the other two articles. David notMD (talk) 21:07, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@David notMD: Thank you, Copying from other articles is fine but it cannot be from an outside source. Thank you for addressing the issue. I will keep you updated. AmericanAir88 (talk) 21:15, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@AmericanAir88: I believe the plagiarism is actually the other way around. In Wikipedia, the articles Allergy and Food allergy share the text that I copied into Egg allergy. The references are Janeway, Grimbaldeston and Holt. The World Asthma Foundation website you provided actually starts with the words "According to Wikipedia." Other sections, for example "Hygiene hypothesis" are directly taken from the Wikipedia article Allergy. The ELISA-Handout link you provided also has content that word-for-word matches Wikipedia's Allergy. It has no references. I do not believe the authors of ELISA wrote this on their own and managed to word-for-word match Wikipedia and the World Asthma Foundation. The more logical explanation is that ELISA plagiarized Wikipedia without attribution. David notMD (talk) 03:39, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

@David notMD: You are absolutely correct. AmericanAir88 (talk) 21:35, 7 November 2017 (UTC).  Done

• I got confused with this part under Causes "The cause is typically the eating of eggs or foods that contain eggs." Can you expand this. It needs to more than one sentence when compared to the next couple of sections. AmericanAir88 (talk) 21:37, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Two sentences and a citation added.  Done David notMD (talk) 23:56, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

@David notMD: Excellent Work AmericanAir88 (talk) 03:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• This article could use more wikilinks as there are some sections without any. AmericanAir88 (talk) 21:39, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Fourteen Wililinks added.  Done David notMD (talk) 23:56, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

@David notMD: Excellent Work AmericanAir88 (talk) 03:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• @David notMD: The "Society" section is awkward. It could use some expansion and reworking. AmericanAir88 (talk) 22:17, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Will be adding content about how an allergy affects quality of life for both the child and the parents/caregivers. David notMD (talk) 12:22, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Added text and six citations.  Done David notMD (talk) 12:16, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

• @David notMD: The "Exercise" section is awkward as well. It could use expansion and reworking also. AmericanAir88 (talk) 22:24, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

More text and two more citations added.  Done David notMD (talk) 12:22, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

The Review Table will now begin. All issues have been solved. AmericanAir88 (talk) 15:41, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Review Table

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.	Very clear and concise
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	All complies
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.	All references are useful
	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).	All are reliable
	2c. it contains no original research.	No original research
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	The copyright violation is on the websites end
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Addresses all the main topics.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Keeps Focus on Egg Allergy while providing useful details.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Very Neutral Article
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No edit wars
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.	All valid
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	All are relevant and have suitable captions
	7. Overall assessment.	Congratulations you Passed

Closing Comments

Congratulations on passing. You have been one of my favorite users I have encountered on wikipedia. You are so dedicated to making the encyclopedia and your knowledges very impressive. Your knowledge amazes me. I hope we can work together in the future. Please keep in contact. If you need any help just ask. AmericanAir88 (talk) 16:29, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments

• Refs need to be consistently formatted
• Is this just for chicken eggs or other eggs aswell? This ref mentions some other ones[1]
• The second paragraph is about food allergies generally rather than about egg allergies. IMO should be moved to that article and rewritten about egg allergies.
• How commonly they occur should be in the lead. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:28, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

1) All links work. I changed format on a few that were different. Not sure what else wanted here.

2) Other types of eggs were mentioned in Treatment with a citation (Langeland 1983). I replaced that with your suggested ref (Caubet) which cites Langeland and was already ref #1. Done

3) Revised second paragraph (and did same in Milk allergy, where I had also added it)  Done

4) Added prevalence to lead  Done

5) I just added a big chunk of text and citations to Society and culture. Not sure if I am entirely comfortable with text, especially as about food allergy in general rather than specific to egg allergy. Compared to peanut and tree nut, egg allergy often resolves as children age, and is also less likely to trigger severe anaphylactic episodes. However, for a subset of people it persists and remains a danger. Eggs, like nuts wheat and soy, often end up as ingredients in packaged foods and restaurant foods, so the quality of life issues apply.

Thanks for looking in. David notMD (talk) 21:47, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

The Review Table will now begin. All issues have been solved. AmericanAir88 (talk) 15:40, 12 November 2017 (UTC)