Contents

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine

Edit with VisualEditor

Welcome to the WikiProject Medicine talk page. If you have comments or believe something can be improved, feel free to post. Also feel free to introduce yourself if you plan on becoming an active editor!

We do not provide medical advice; please see a health professional.

• Unsure about something? Make sure to look at our style and source guidelines.
• Please don't shout, remain civil, be respectful to all, and assume good faith.
• Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
• Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~).
• Threads older than 30 days are automatically archived.
• Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Newsletter/Mailing_list

This page has been mentioned by a media organization: Sarah Shamim, Dwayne Oxford (June 14, 2024). "Wikipedia war: Fierce row erupts over Israel's deadly Nuseirat assault". Al Jazeera English. Retrieved June 14, 2024. Wikipedia was able to address the issue of misinformation about the virus spreading on its platform, however, with projects like Wiki Project Medicine, a community of doctors and scientists,working to correct wrong information.

I think the majority of the active editors here know that WikiProject Medicine has an issue with unsourced statements in articles. I'm not blaming anyone; a lot of the citation issues come from editors not familiar with Wikipedia. Regardless of how this issue started, I think we need to have a conversation about how to fix it.

I've noticed that there are typically two different types of pages that have unspurced statements: pages that are almost completely unsourced (for example, 1q21.1 duplication syndrome), and pages that have one or two unsourced statements but are otherwise well cited (for example, 3-M syndrome).

For the first type of page, I believe it's best to do a quick literary search to see if you can find where the information came from; however, I've found that this is usually quite low-yeild, especially when the whole page is unsourced. I believe most of these pages need to be rewritten. Obviously, this is a time-consuming task, but something needs to be done about the issue.

For the second type of page, usually I can find where they got the statment by searching keywords from the unsourced statement in Google. When I can't find the original source, I think it's fair to delete the unsourced passage, assuming it is not somehow vital information (however, if it were vital information, there should be a source somewhere with that information).

I'm looking for other ideas, suggestions, advice, and knowledge on this topic. I'm still a fairly new editor, and I haven't worked much on correcting this problem, so if anyone with more knowledge could share their opinions, that would be great. I just want to emphasize that this is not me trying to bash any editors; I just think it's time we have a conversation about this very prevelant issue. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 15:42, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you thinking about the articles tagged as having no refs, such as these?

• COVID-19 pandemic in the British Overseas Territories
• Dipsogen
• Health forecasting
• List of strains of Escherichia coli
• Medical practice consultants
• Pulmonary pathology
• Stabilization (medicine)
• Therapeutic support staff
• Videoscope
• Walking-stalk skin flap

WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:49, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm refering to any page with the citation needed template. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 20:03, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are over 12,000 WPMED-tagged articles with a {{fact}} tag somewhere in it. (There are more than half a million tagged articles overall.) That's a bit much to handle all at once.

This link to Citation Hunt will give you just the ones that are in Category:Top-importance medicine articles. If you try that out and like it, we can set up another for Category:High-importance medicine articles, or perhaps using the Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Popular pages list. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:44, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a great idea thank you! So far I've just been going through the list alphabetically. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 04:27, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a discussion regarding the merging of Somatization disorder and Somatic symptom disorder here and I would really appreciate if others could give their input on the topic. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 05:52, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's a village pump discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Resources on severe mental illness pages that may be of interest to this project. I've given my thoughts there, but the participants of this project probably have the best judgement on this topic. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:56, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working with Pete Nelson from UKY (and by "working with" I mean mostly doing some minor cleanup on his work) on User:WikiDan61/LATE which is intended to replace the current contents of Limbic-predominant age-related TDP-43 encephalopathy. As can be seen from the existing article, Nelson is clearly a recognized expert in the field for this condition. I got involved when he made a major wholesale edit to the article, basically blowing away the existing citations. Once I was able to mentor him through some Wikipedia basics, and help him with some article organization ideas, he has cleaned up the article (now living in my user space as a drafting location). I'd like to have someone from this project assess the present state of the draft and see if it is ready to be copied into place of the existing article. I might also need some Wikipedia expertise on how to do the merge to preserve the proper authorship attributions (his and my edits in my userspace). Thanks!! WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:44, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dan61. Just to clarify, I wrote the prior version as well, this is just an update to flesh it out a little bit and conform more closely to (what I understood to be) Wikipedia formating.

Best regards,

Pete Nelson Pete Nelson from UKY (talk) 21:53, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a cross-page diff of the sandbox vs current article, if anyone wants to take a look at the changes. It quadruples the amount of readable prose and doubles the number of sources cited. I haven't looked at the quality of the sources, but everything else looks good to me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:32, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A new form of B12 deficiency affects the nervous system only, with B12 levels remaining normal in the blood: Transcobalamin receptor antibodies in autoimmune vitamin B12 central deficiency - Pluvinage et al., 26 Jun 2024. I wonder if it merits a mention in B12 deficiency or even a standalone article. The condition reminds me of cerebral folate deficiency. --CopperKettle (talk) 05:43, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps "mooted" rather than "discovered". Any WP:MEDRS ? Bon courage (talk) 05:58, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So we have one confirmed case in humans reported by a primary source? Seems interesting and something to take note of, but all the same too soon for the encyclopedia to be rewritten. Draken Bowser (talk) 10:40, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we could justify a single sentence in Vitamin B12 deficiency#History ("A single case study claimed..."). I do not think that a standalone article is warranted. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I find this very interesting, but am inclined to agree with WhatamIdoing, but I don't think we need to point out it was a "single" study, rather it makes sense to mention "A case study describes ...". Anyone able to understand what a case study is, should also inherently understand its limitations. CFCF (talk) 10:26, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Three-dimensional electrical capacitance tomography#Requested move 14 May 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Polyamorph (talk) 15:38, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:58, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Presently, Covid-Organics mentions a Phase III trial, published in a journal from Fortune Journals (who's apparently predatory per Beall's List), as if it was in a typical, credible journal, without further comment/context. I'm hoping someone with more experience and energy than me could e.g. add a sentence or two properly contextualizing the quality of the journal/trial. Cybercobra (talk) 22:31, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you ought to feel free to just remove it. CFCF (talk) 10:27, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We at Wiki Med Foundation have been working to develop a CT / MRI scan viewer. Currently it is functionally on EN WP as a trial and works fairly well on mobile and desktop. Thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:56, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

this is a very good idea, I believe this needs to be supported--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That looks interesting. I think the UI needs a little more information. So first, for anyone who wants to take a look (do it!), just go to User:Doc James/CT scan viewer, and where it says "(requires turning on the gadget under preferences or this)" in the section heading, click on the word 'this'. (If you do that, you can test it without having to do anything to your prefs.) In the picture, a ► play button will appear. Click that.

Then wait several seconds for all the images to load. In this instance, there are 248 images. It'll give you a vertical bar with a slider dot at the bottom. After everything's loaded, you can slide that up and down to step through the images. If you want to view it image-by-image, then look at the text (sideways) that says『← (177/248) →』and click on the individual arrows.

I think this would be particularly interesting on CT scan, because it gives people an idea of what the results are. For that page in particular, I'd love to see a head-to-toe scan with a few labels (spine, lungs, liver?), so they can stay oriented.

Also, I wonder whether this could be integrated into MediaViewer. MarkTraceur, do you know a multi-part image has ever been considered there? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:26, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a member of Wikipedia Radiology task force, I always wanted this kind of gadget in Radiology related articles. Thankyou @Doc James for fulfilling this wish. I see this as a good starting point to move forward to its implementation. I agree with WhatamIdoing's comment about UI, and would also request this support to be extended to MR Scans as well. Thankyou. _signed, 511KeV ^(talk) 03:53, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On behalf of the University of California, San Diego, I have submitted a draft article about American epidemiologist Corinne Peek-Asa (red-linked in this list and at WikiProject Women in Red/Fellowships) as part of my work at Beutler Ink. Sharing a notice here in case any WikiProject Medicine participants are interested in taking a look. Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 17:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AFC[1] are the ones that take a look at this, thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:29, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for uninvolved editors opinions on the discussion at List of common misconceptions on whether the lede meets sourcing requirements. Conversation seems to have stalled. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 23:25, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for post(seems to be a wide topic)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:21, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, my name is Pete Nelson (wiki username is Pete Nelson from UKY),

I wrote a web page about LATE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limbic-predominant_age-related_TDP-43_encephalopathy It generally gets around 300 hits per month; not a ton but it's a disease with high public health impact.

I had written the web page in a somewhat essay-like format and I noted that it had a poor formatting score according to Wikipedia editors. Thus, I rewrote the web page and, under the advice and help by WikiDan61, we produced a Wikipedia page (in his sandbox) that conforms better the format and has a bit more info. Apparently this replacement (of my web page, by my web page) has struck the senior medical editors as problematic, and therefore WikiDan61 suggested I contact you on this page.

Can you help please?

Thanks, Pete aka Pete Nelson from UKY Pete Nelson from UKY (talk) 00:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Pete Nelson from UKY. It looks like @WikiDan61 removed it. This is not necessarily a permanent thing, and it's reversible. He summarized his objection as "That comprehensive rewrite discarded 36 sources, and retained only one. See WP:NOR."

As a general rule, Wikipedia articles should be written in ordinary paragraphs rather than bullet points, and in an ideal world, there would be more inline citations (which I know you were working on). May I suggest that you look at User:WikiDan61/LATE again, pick just one little section (maybe User:WikiDan61/LATE#Society and culture?) and move just that one section over to Limbic-predominant age-related TDP-43 encephalopathy? (It doesn't have any normal sections at the moment, so just edit the page and paste the new section above the ==References== section.) Then see if there are objections to that specific edit. It's more challenging to discuss whole-page changes, so I think that focusing on a single section would be more practical. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks WhatamIdoing!

I guess there was a miscommunication since the number of references went from 36 to 65 or so? I don't think I discarded any, or only a few to lessen the number of references I was an author of because the Editors were focused on this problem.

Is WikiDan61 reading this? I hope he can, so he could perhaps redo that summary that was quite inaccurate. (WikiDan61 was very helpful in the rewrite and I am grateful for that.)

Thanks again,

Pete Nelson from UKY Pete Nelson from UKY (talk) 01:53, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Looking at the link you sent from WikiDan61, it confirms that there were 68 references cited and bibliographied) User:WikiDan61/LATE

I'm a bit confused because there seemingly is a Wikipedia-wished-for headings and organization format, and the updated wiki page now conforms to it? Pete Nelson from UKY (talk) 02:10, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So just to be clear, I've done all that work to make the Wikipedia post for LATE better, and it's all for nought? Bummer. Lesson learned I guess. Pete Nelson from UKY (talk) 17:46, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pete Nelson from UKY, your work is not lost. But, please, take it stepwise. Move just one of the new ==Sections== into the existing article, instead of replacing the entire page all at once. Then post back here, and I'll take a look at it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:40, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will do! Thanks! Pete Nelson from UKY (talk) 19:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

alright, I added a section but it wouldn't let me add a figure which is pretty important (depicting cognitive trajectories). Pete Nelson from UKY (talk) 19:41, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I collected the refs for you from User:WikiDan61/LATE#Cognitive symptoms. When you're copying between pages, you need to open the 'source' page in the editor, and copy from that. Otherwise it loses all the formatting, links, refs, images, etc.

Where's the figure that you couldn't add? Is it already in the article? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:01, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Ober's test#Requested move 6 July 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 16:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be another round of "we must/mustn't use apostrophes in eponymously titled subjects". Nobody has replied. I'm sure it would be appreciated if anyone with an opinion – any opinion – posted a comment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:42, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I posted this story from the Signpost last month. Things have evolved a bit and now Retraction bot handles {{Erratum}}, {{Expression of concern}}, and {{Retracted}}. These populate the following categories:

• Category:Articles citing retracted publications (292)

• Category:Articles citing publications with expressions of concern (60)

• Category:Articles citing publications with errata (65)

If the citation is no longer reliable, then the article needs to be updated, which could be as minor as the removal/replacement of the citation with a reliable one, to rewriting an entire section that was based on flawed premises. If the citation to a retracted paper was intentional, like in the context of a controversy noting that a paper was later retracted, you can replace {{retraction|...}} with {{retraction|...|intentional=yes}}/{{expression of concern|...}} with {{expression of concern|...|intentional=yes}}/{{Erratum|...}} with {{Erratum|...|checked=yes}}.

I put the list of articles within the scope of WP:MED in collapsed sections. Any help you can give with those are greatly appreciated. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:06, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to remove/strike through those you've dealt with. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:17, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

441 problems is a pretty big project. If we fix 10 a day, that will take more than a month. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely a large effort, but for WP:MED, it's about 120 articles. Luckily, there's some overlap with a list I've made at WT:MCB and the notices are rather prominent in the articles, so the count goes down overall. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:23, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm attempting to rewrite the page Connective tissue disease and I've kind of ran into an issue. When it comes to writting about catagories of diseases or more broad terms should we follow the classic format of signs symptoms, causes, diagnosis, treatment etc. or should this be modified a bit? The issue I've come across is that there usually isn't much information on the group of disorders itself as most research is directed on individual diseases. Meaning if i wanted to make a section for symptoms of Connective tissue disease the only resource i could find summerizing the general symptoms is the cleveland clinic page[2] and Cedars-Sinai page[3]. Currently a lot of the disease catgory pages just have the classifications for the disorders. Would it be appropriate to make the classification section its own section (instead of having it as a subsection of diagnosis) and moving it farther up due to it being relevant (like I've done in my draft for connective tissue disease). Sorry if this came off as a bit of a ramble but I've been meaning to ask this question for awhile. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 23:49, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need much better sources! Pubmed stuff does tend to be on extremely specific topics - you may want to be looking at recent medical textbooks, which you won't find free online. Johnbod (talk) 01:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any recomendations for how I can find this kind of content? I find that Science Direct can be hit or miss for this kind of thing (example). CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 02:17, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's the sort of thing I mean (about Pubmed stuff does tend to be on extremely specific topics). Medical textbooks are hard to find online, as they want to get the students/doctors to pay their often very high prices. Can you get to a good college or medical school library. These days it is often paywalled online subs. Perhaps other medical editors can advise? Good luck. Johnbod (talk) 03:28, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start blindly looking in some rheumatology textbooks for now. Thanks for the help! CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 04:49, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perlego at Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library has two potentially useful textbooks:

• The Rheumatology Handbook for Clinicians (ISBN 9781550599053), especially the chapter "The Patient Who Is Systemically Unwell: Is It a Connective Tissue Disease?"
• ABC of Rheumatology (ISBN 9781118793206), which has a bit on pediatric connective tissue disorders and a chapter at the end on epidemiology that includes a section on connective tissue disorders.

There are probably other sources available in TWL. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:08, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For some time not the first sentence in Addison's disease has been "Addison's disease, also known as primary adrenal insufficiency, is a rare long-term endocrine disorder characterized by inadequate production of the steroid hormones cortisol and aldosterone by the two outer layers of the cells of the adrenal glands (adrenal cortex), causing adrenal insufficiency." However there's a bit of a disagreement going on between me and another editor.

They removed the term rare stating "unquantified relative terms are meaningless". I reverted this edit with my reasoning being "taking out the fact that Addisons disease is rare doesn't make sense as it is well sourced and helpful to readers (eg. the average reader knows what rare is but may not understand that 1 in 10,000 is considered rare for a disorder" perhaps I didn't word this very well but i stand by this point. To which the other editor reverted my revert with the reaoning "an unquantified relative term does not provide the information that you seem to believe was taken out. the number you quote remains in the lead section" and started this conversation on the talk page.

I have weighed in on the talk page as to why i think rare should be kept in the lead but I'm not going to add it back as I want to prevent conflict and would appreciate some unbiased opinions on the topic. If anyone could weigh in on the talk page that would be greately appreciated. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 15:49, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In some contexts, and countries, "rare disease" is a legally-defined term - see here for a starting point. Don't we have rare disease - yes, apparently we do. In most countries, Addison's disease would seem to meet the criterion. Johnbod (talk) 16:34, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting! In my comment on the talk page I did list the FDA definiton which is the same as the one you linked. I didn't feel like digging up an international source as I doubted that Addison's disease would fail to meet other criteria used. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 16:52, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the australian euthanasia activist Philip Nitschke announced earlier this month that the sarco pod, a device used to help carry out assisted suicides, would be used for the first time. i found headlines saying switzerland was gonna ban the device, but its only been sort of banned in 2 swiss cantons.

problem is, most news outlets reporting on this are listed in wikipedias section on reliable sources as untrustworthy and only swiss news outlets have reported reliably about it. I dont think i have the full picture tho. this is a sensitive subject and i need help finding sources.

i need a bit of help on adding the info mentioned above to the page on the sarco pod. i need help finding out whats going on exactly. i cant find any announcements on these developments on Exit Internationals website or on swiss agencies regulating medicine.

Bird244 (talk) 20:08, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Transgender hormone therapy#Requested move 15 July 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject.

This also affects Hormone replacement therapy Void if removed (talk) 09:09, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:20, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would someone from this WikiProject mind taking a look at Spondyloarthritis (SpA) and assessing it? It was created yesterday directly in the mainspace and never received any type of assessment. Given WP:MEDRS and all of the other things involved with creating/editing content about this type of subject, it would probably be a good idea for others more experienced with such articles to look it over. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:12, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly, it's a C-class page, but the important question is whether it's the same subject as Spondyloarthropathy. Damjana12, what's the relationship between spondyloarthrITIS and spondyloarthrOPATHY? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:24, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly It seems to me that spondyloarthritis and spondyloarthropathy are synonyms. However the icd seems to use the term spondyloarthritis[4]. This article seems to go over the terminology quite well. I'll give you kinda the highlights:

"Spondyloarthritis and spondyloarthropathy are often used interchangeably. Some experts prefer the term spondyloarthritis rather than spondyloarthropathy because the ending “arthritis” indicates inflammation of the joint, whereas the ending “arthropathy” can refer to any type of joint disease."

I personally don't see the need for a seprate page for spondyloarthritis. In addition the page itself doesn't follow the formatting for diseases and the sources aren't great. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 00:18, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for taking a look at this. Perhaps one of you could try explaining this to the article's creator? -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:02, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I left a merge proposal template on both the pages however I think I'll reach out directly to the user on their talk page since they seem to be a new editor and I'll see if they are interested in helping me fix up the page Spondyloarthropathy as I personally feel it needs some work. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 20:13, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds great. Thanks for doing that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:43, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance is requested: With the wonderful help of the Wiki educators and LFS specialists at the National Cancer Institute's Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, I have been able to update this page with clarifications to most all of the headings during my "Wiki science" course. However, due to potential conflicts of interest, I need to request assistance from another editor to add the "Li-Fraumeni Syndrome Association" (aka LFS Association / LFSA) as a reputable source that promotes LFS research and supports LFS families, as well as connecting families with the best providers known, world-wide. The LFSA is comprised of an all-volunteer board, with medical and scientific boards comprised of the top international LFS researchers, along with a genetic counseling group of very active LFS/cancer genetic providers who contribute greatly. The LFSA holds the top international scientific symposiums on LFS wherein families are also involved every two years and we offer an international Youth Program with fun and educational workshops every other year. I volunteer for the LFSA, so if someone else could add our website to this page, it could help many cancer-prone families connect with each other and the best resources for care. Thank you. Li-Fraumeni Syndrome Association website: www.LFSAssociation.org Germlinep53 (talk) 20:21, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:Human epigenome#This article should be merged into epigenome. At this point, I think they would love to hear from anyone who has glanced over the two articles, even if you don't really know much about the subject area. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I made a request to move Spondyloarthropathy to Spondyloarthritis at Talk:Spondyloarthropathy#Requested_move_21_July_2024. I would really appreciate others input on the subject! CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 22:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As per the heading: the July/August 2024 Print Edition of the Canadian Medical Association Journal (CMAJ) used a WikiCommons picture of eosinophilic esophagitis.

Does any one happen to know User:CoRus13? (He doesn't seem to be around much. I wonder whether he knows the CMAJ liked his image enough to use it.)

Note: The article was published electronically in February.

Nephron  T|C 22:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS - CMAJ previously used one of my images of diffuse alveolar damage on the cover (for an article about ARDS in July 2021)... and violated the terms of use. (I saw the image when it was published. They ended-up publishing a correction.) Nephron  T|C 22:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Special:EmailUser/CoRus13 might work. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some members of this WikiProject might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/UCSF/Foundations II (Summer 2024) because it appears all the participants in that course have chosen articles about medical topics to try and improve. Given the added difficulty associated with editing such articles, it might be a good idea for someone to check their work to see whether it's OK, and perhaps also offer suggestions on how such articles should be edited. I've already asked the course's Wikipedia Expert about this at User talk:Ian (Wiki Ed)#Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/UCSF/Foundations II (Summer 2024) because of some edits I saw made to Overmedication, but other articles might need to be checked as well. In addition, given the apparent interest of these students and their course instructor in this genre of article, they might be good candidates to join this WikiProject. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]