Talk:History of malaria/GA1

GA Review

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

This is a very good article on a highly encyclopedic topic. I agree with the "timeline" approach as opposed to the "topic" approach (discovery, treatment, prophylaxis) although an image or table timelining this would be ideal.

• GENERAL: I'm unsure what the MOS says about spaces between references. Could anyone verify this?

I've removed all that I could find. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• GENERAL: Some references appear to be primary research studies (eg reference from PNAS). Would there be additional secondary references that would support their relevance?

Quite a lot of journal articles are used, but since these are reliable sources and are used with care to support uncontroversial points, I don't see a problem here. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• GENERAL: Some book references would benefit from having ISBN added.

see: Further reading Ernst Hempelmann (talk) 22 January 2009

• INTRO: Would there be a general reference that could be used to support the entire intro? (Optional.)
• ORIGIN: The Sallares et al (2004) study does not support the claims concerning all erythrocyte pathology mentioned earlier in the paragraph. Is there a general review on this subject, e.g. from the field of population genetics?

a useful link is: http://web2.airmail.net/uthman/hemoglobinopathy/hemoglobinopathy.html

• EARLY RESEARCH: Is there a direct reference for Li Shizhen being the first to use Qinghaosu?

Ge Hong was the first in medical history (340 AD) to use qinghao for acute fever episodes

Reflections on the Discovery' of the Anti-malarial Qinghao, in J. Aronson (ed) Future Developments in Clinical Pharmacology. Special Issue. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 61 (6): (2006) 666-670.

The History of Qinghao in the Chinese Materia Medica. Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 100 (6): (2006) 505-508

• 19th CENTURY: You wouldn't have the original reference for the discovery by Pelletier/Caventou, would you?

yes I do, reference is added: P. J. Pelletier C.-B. Caventou Ann Chim Phys 1820, 15, 291 P. J. Pelletier C.-B. Caventou Ann Chim Phys 1820, 15, 337 Ernst Hempelmann (talk) 20.January 2009

• 19th CENTURY: I would suggest using subscript for the numbers in chemical formulae.
• 19th CENTURY: The paragraph starting "William Henry Perkin..." has less to do with malaria than with the general development of biochemistry and pharmacology. Perhaps this should be made a bit clearer.

Perkin accidentally started the dye industry, which was the springboard to malaria chemotherapy Ernst Hempelmann (talk) 23. January 2009

I will stop here, as meatspace calls, but I will hopefully review the remainder soon. JFW | T@lk 15:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Few Comments

• The line, "Another particularly exciting application of genetic technology is the ability to produce genetically-modified mosquitoes that are unable to transmit malaria, allowing biological control of malaria transmission.", I think "exciting application" is a POV and peacock term, though subtle, can this be neutralized

Reworded, I was getting carried away! Tim Vickers (talk) 02:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• External links comes at the end,
• Treatment guidelines has some formatting problems, can we use a citation template instead? And I think material from these sources should also be a part of the article.

Thats it for now! --Bluptr (talk) 18:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Continuation

• 20th CENTURY: I think the discussion of the discovery of sickle cell haemoglobin is a bit of a diversion.

removed HbS studies Ernst Hempelmann (talk) 2 February 2009

• 20th CENTURY: I'm pretty sure artemisinin combination treatments are not first line in many countries. In the UK, they are reserved for severe malaria.

Standard treatment in SE Asia, due to widespread and high-level antifolate/chloroquine resistance. Reworded to "widely used". Tim Vickers (talk) 02:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• 21st CENTURY: no concerns
• TREATMENT GUIDELINES: this should either be converted to prose or moved to the "external links" section. I think the UK malaria guideline is rather good.

moved to external links Ernst Hempelmann (talk) 2 February 2009

• EXTERNAL LINKS: the links could do with better descriptions.

That's it for now. Please let me know when editing is completed, so I can formally accord GA status. JFW | T@lk 01:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Support: I just completed a fairly thorough copyedit sweep, and by my estimation the article is now close to fulfilling the GA criteria. My only remaining issue is that the image of the Cloaca Maxima in the "Origin and early history" section seems irrelevant (see requirement 6b at WP:GACR). If that image actually is relevant, how that's so needs to be made clear in the text of that section. Other than that, the article seem well (though not brilliantly) written, accurate and verifiable, and broad in its coverage. As a minor suggestion for increased clarity, consider expanding the names of journals used in each reference -- contracted journal names are unnecessary. Wikipedia isn't a paper encyclopedia, so it doesn't have the space constraints of traditional publications. Emw2012 (talk) 00:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

image of Cloaca Maxima is removed Ernst Hempelmann (talk) 11 February 2009

I don't see any significant blocking issues, so the article has my support for promotion to GA. I'll leave Jfdwolff to the final decision, since he/she began this review. The bit about expanding journal titles is more applicable at FAC anyways, if at all. Great job! Emw2012 (talk) 17:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Has there been any updates to this nomination? It is one of the longest-held nominations at GAN now. Gary King (talk) 16:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I left a note on the Talk page of the primary reviewer about a week and a half ago, but haven't gotten a response. I'll leave another note. If there's no reply from him within two days, then I'll promote this article (barring any objections in the meantime). Emw2012 (talk) 16:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Passed

Per comments above, this article is considered to meet the criteria for good articles. Congratulations! (With regard to why I, not the initial reviewer, am closing this review, it's been almost a month since that reviewer's concerns have been addressed.) Emw2012 (talk) 16:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

My apologies for not following up sooner. I completely agree that the article meets GA criteria, and support its passing GA. Well done! A very thorough and fascinating article. JFW | T@lk 21:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)