Contents

Talk:Whooping cough: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 05:08, 14 September 2022

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Whooping cough. PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles) The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine. Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

The contents of the Mythology Concerning Whooping Cough page were merged into Whooping cough on 3 June 2014. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

Medicine: Translation B‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Translation task force (assessed as High-importance).

@Doc James: reverted my edits without explanation. That's not good form. What's up? Lfstevens (talk) 21:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You edits broke some refs [1], caused improper formatting, added some no wiki tags, added " that were not needed. There was no justification for the edit in the edit summary. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:27, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. Looks like VE put in some junk. I made the edit again, without the noise. FWIW, I've never seen refs converted to comments as in this article. Don't understand the purpose.

I have restored the lead back to 4 paragraphs per WP:LEAD. You changed it to 6.

Every sentence in the lead contains a reference. Otherwise people will come and add "citation needed" tags. If two sentences in a row are supported by the same ref than the ref supporting the first sentence is hidden.

Many of your changes go against WP:MEDMOS.

Also our leads are being written to follow the body of the text per WP:MEDMOS, thus the ordering of content in the lead Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:03, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed the section of WP:MOS and think I didn't really stray, so I'd appreciate if you could be more specific. I'm always happy to fix any problems I cause. On the lead, I always opt for clarity over paragraph counts. That's why I made those changes. Lfstevens (talk) 23:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So two main points 1) the lead is laid out to follow the body of the text 2) the lead is 4 paragraphs per WP:LEAD Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:38, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that the previous lead layout was better and should be maintained. The edits making it a larger number of short choppy paragraphs weren't improvements. Zad68 13:23, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no plans for further changes. Let me know if I broke anything else and I'll pitch in. Lfstevens (talk) 15:33, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

doi:10.1128/CMR.00031-15 Review in CMR. JFW | T@lk 14:17, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence "For most adults and adolescents, who often do not seek medical care until several weeks into their illness, serology may be used to determine whether antibody against pertussis toxin or another component of B. pertussis is present at high levels in the blood of the person." had no citation and seemed to plagiarize this article http://www.eurodiagnostica.com/index.php?headId=4&pageId=4&langId=1&diseaseId=8#nr2-tab , so I cited it and changed up the wording. ChaKeSeLiAl (talk) 01:45, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added information on the shift of affected age group , a reason for the shift, and a citation to a scientific journal in the Vaccine section. ChaKeSeLiAl (talk) 02:37, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced inaccurate death statistic and citation in the Epidemiology section. I attempted to search for the previous numbers in the citation, but was unable to find them. ChaKeSeLiAl (talk) 02:57, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ref was not inaccurate. Just came to different conclusions. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:14, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilinked "zoonotic disease" in cause to the Zoonosis page. ChaKeSeLiAl (talk) 03:04, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the article states that whooping cough is more prevalent in the developed world, I think it might be worth discussing the effectiveness - or lack thereof - of common cough remedies that most people in Canada, US, etc might turn to in lieu of seeing a doctor or getting any other remedy. Are cough syrups such as Buckley's (I mention that one as it's supposed to be the strongest non-prescription remedy) at all effective or are they perhaps even dangerous? 68.146.233.86 (talk) 21:10, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

doi:10.1128/CMR.00083-15 JFW | T@lk 13:13, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have self-reverted a recent edit, since an identical edit to Pertussis vaccine was challenged. I have started a discussion there.

The article's 'history' section opens with the discovery of B. pertussis in 1906 but the following source can be used to add some earlier history:

Rennie, Claire (2016), "The Treatment of Whooping Cough in Eighteenth-Century England" (PDF), Ex Historia, 8: 1–33 

Richard Nevell (talk) 20:24, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure agree. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:51, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the move request was: moved per consensus. —usernamekiran(talk) 13:06, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pertussis → Whooping cough – "Whooping cough" is the WP:COMMONNAME, especially in English-speaking countries: [2]. Note that the Mayo Clinic, WebMD, and Medline Plus also title their articles "Whooping cough" rather than "Pertussis". Kaldari (talk) 03:31, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Google Books disagrees with Google Trends: ngram. Dekimasuよ! 05:25, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I will go ahead and oppose this change. Though "pertussis" may be a more technical term as argued below, it is also well-known, particularly because it is referred to as "pertussis" in the names of various vaccines (DPT and DTaP vaccines, etc.). I'd also note that relevant related pages, such as Pertussis vaccine and Pertussis toxin, are currently at consistent titles. Dekimasuよ! 23:40, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• oppose - Usage evidence based on Google Ngrams leads me to believe that the current title and primary redirect are the best way to handle this. -- Netoholic @ 05:36, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose per Netoholic rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:25, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I think "whooping cough" is the common name. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:38, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Sites for the general public generally use whooping cough.[3] Pertussis is a more technical term. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:46, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support You can add the NHS to the list of organisations that use 'whooping cough' rather than 'pertussis'. It looks like whooping cough is used in general texts, perhaps what Google books is doing is showing what the academic literature tends to use. Since Wikipedia's audience is essentially the general public, I think it makes sense to use a common term they're more likely to have heard of. Richard Nevell (talk) 14:08, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. We are a general encyclopedia, and should use the common name known to the general readership. A classic case of statistics being a good guide but a very poor arbitrator. Andrewa (talk) 17:39, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as per WP:COMMONNAME. Heck, the only reason I know what pertussis is is because I'm in medical school. Waddie96 (talk) 11:24, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

I created Category:Pertussis. At the time, this article had the title "Pertussis", so i used said category title. However, now that the article title has been moved, i think the category should also be retitled "Whooping cough", for consistency.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 16:00, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Goals:

1. Addition of global statistics of pertussis outbreaks

2. Addition of the difference between clinical presentation of pertussis in "Signs and Symptoms" portion.

3. Find information regarding the use of counter medication such as cough suppressants/lozenges with whooping cough in "Treatment"

Respond to peer review prompts on the ARTICLE talk page, following the statement made the group about its planned edits.

1. All group members should respond to the following prompts, with specific examples:

· Do the group’s edits improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”?

-- Yes, Kim's addition of statistics about India and other countries helps to add validity and expands on the gravity and prevalence of whooping cough in the world despite the fact that there is an existing vaccine. --Dannymrowr (talk) 20:44, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

-- The group's edits improve the article by providing more recent and accurate information about the prevalence of whooping cough in several countries.--Mparagas18 (talk) 21:29, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

-- Improved article by adding in statistics for Germany, China, and India from a reliable secondary source. Language is neutral and edits are balanced with respect to the overall structure of the article. --Alexuang (talk) 16:52, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

· Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement?

-- Yes, I believe group 3c's goal of adding statistics to the page was achieved --Dannymrowr (talk) 20:47, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

-- Yes, the group achieved their goal of adding accurate, relevant statistics about whooping cough prevalence.--Mparagas18 (talk) 21:29, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

-- Global statistics added in for three countries. U.S. statistics already present in the article. Treatment section only contains information on prescription medications. --Alexuang (talk) 16:56, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2. Each group should divide up the prompts below so that a different person responds to each question. Please sign your comments with your name and account name so that you receive credit.

· Person A: Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? If not, specify…

-- Yes it does, the statistics are cited and straightforward with no opinion attached. It is simply the statistic of the prevalence of whooping cough. --Dannymrowr (talk) 20:44, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

· Person B: Are the points included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available? If not, specify…

--Overall yes. Fixed statistic for China (10340 -> 10390). Good review article. --Alexuang (talk) 21:44, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

· Person C. Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style? If not, specify… -- Yes, the edits are formatted consistent with Wikipedia's manual of style.-- Brendado425 (talk) 21:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

· Person D. Is there any evidence of plagiarism or copyright violation? If yes, specify…

-- No, the statistics Kim added are appropriately cited and do not show any evidence of plagiarism or copyright.--Mparagas18 (talk) 21:03, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3501154/ may be airborne. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:15, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tetanus meanning transletion to khasi 2409:4066:113:DF2E:8518:718F:AEBB:D55B (talk) 13:58, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]