Talk:Breast cancer/Archive 1

Avoid a Wikipedia role

I would strongly object to considering this a Wikipedia import, and making sure there is no Wikipedia text in the article. There are several Citizens quite capable of writing original content for this article.

Right now, there are discussions about licensing and competitive positioning that argue about being very restrictive on Wikipedia importing, especially when WP is importing CZ articles and then gets higher Google ratings. Howard C. Berkowitz 11:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

It isn't marked as a WP import, but as "some content may have appeared on WP". If you have a look at this diff, you will see that lots of paragraphs are unchanged from the original version that was imported from WP. As it stands, we must include the WP flag. It would be nice if we could remove all the WP content however. --Chris Key 11:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Without writing a script, do you know of a tool that could show the WP material underscored or something else that will be visible on a monochrome printer? Ideally, it would be nice to see WP content on a WYSWIG editor.

Another challenge -- I was thinking of illustrations, but I am reminded of Hayford's desire not to see gore. Microscopic anatomy is no problem, but, while a photograph or detailed drawing of peau d'orange would explain better than words, it both might be disturbing to some, and, further, is what others point out involves nudity. Howard C. Berkowitz 16:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid I know of no such tool, and a quick google didn't come up with anything either.

With regards to the images... I have no clue either. Personally I have no objection to any image that conforms to law, but then I'm not squeemish and I'm not a parent. --Chris Key 18:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

An easy way around that is using some none-optical images, e.g. MRI or PET scans. Many papers have such images, and some are even CC-licensed. --Daniel Mietchen 23:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course, one could also use drawings — found some for papilloma here. --Daniel Mietchen 23:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Approval

I'm afraid that as of July 17, this lacks a good deal to be Approval-ready. For example, the pathological classification has only redlinks. There is no detailed discussion of the issues of aromatase inhibitors vs. tamoxifen in pre- and post-menopausal patients.

History is not just ancient -- the impact of the low-dose CMF adjuvant regimen in the mid-seventies rates discussion, and, for that matter, less effective palliation such as Cooper 5-drug. The evolution of the radical mastectomy, and the movement away from it, is historically important. Howard C. Berkowitz 11:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm adding sourced notes on the evolution of chemotherapy. Howard C. Berkowitz 18:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I haven't read the article in detail, but simply judging from what I have seen of it, I agree that it is not yet ready for approval. Some of the problems: Some of the sections are not really linked to each other in the sense of the coherent narrative we are striving for. Why is history section at the end? Why are BRCA1 gene and BRCA2 gene each linked seven times? Also, I think this really should be in the biology group, but since this would give me editorship on the article, I will not perform this change myself. Furthermore, I think we may have a policy hole in cases where a significant WP contributor acts as an Editor for a CZ article imported from WP, though I cannot say whether this is the case here. --Daniel Mietchen 13:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this should be biology, so I added it. I think that there has been a significantly long time since issues were raised and the original editor has not said anything about them - or indeed edited any page on the entire wiki - that we can say there is significant reason to doubt that we should approve it. I think someone needs to contact the original editor, probably by email. In the mean time, what is the procedure if they don't come back? I know another Health sciences (or now Biology) Editor can cancel the nomination, but other than that is there a time limit on responding to these things? --Chris Key 14:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Chris — I extended the approval period, and we now have sufficient time to bring it up to shape. --Daniel Mietchen 14:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Support approving article. Well written and concise. Would suggest recasting the sentence "Seventy percent of the time..." at it's best NOT to start a sentence with a number. Mary Ash 16:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Can't support Approval, having made a number of edits adding content in missing areas, but also seeing other major areas that simply have no information. Howard C. Berkowitz 19:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I also note that there remains large chunks unchanged from the Wikipedia original. --Chris Key 19:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how we can Approve an article with large chunks of WP material in it without making us into laughing stocks unless the person who brought it in here ALSO wrote ALL the WP material.... Hayford Peirce 19:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I just checked: He made some edits but he is by far not the only author. (Moreover, he only was active for a few days and showed no interest for his import.) Another curious observation: The nomination was made by a newly registered Editor immediately after registration (on his second day) for the same day. Then he disappeared. --Peter Schmitt 20:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, as I noted above. Hayford Peirce 20:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I have contacted Jonas both via his talk page and via email, without any reaction. I can imagine that it was just meant as a test of the CZ:Approval Process, which can still do with lots of improvements. --Daniel Mietchen 21:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Version

Jonas has nominated a version from three months ago? Is this a mistake? There have been numerous edits to the article since then -- are none of them worth having in the Approved version? I looked at the *original* article brought in from WP a couple of years ago. There have been *many* edits to the article since then, but, as other people are saying, it looks to me as if there may still be *massive* amounts of WP material here. I don't say I wouldn't, but I would feel awfully uneasy about Approving this article on the basis of a single Editor's say-so. Especially since Jonas, who, goodness knows has a truly impressive set of credentials in the field, only joined the Project two days ago and has not, shall we say, had much time to familiarize himself with our zeitgeist. Hayford Peirce 18:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The version that Jonas nominated was the current version when he started the nomination process. All the edits since then have occured since nomination began. I am VERY concerned about just how much of this article is from WP, and personally I am hoping that approval is postponed (quite possibly for some time). However, I am not an editor in a related workgroup nor am I particularly knowledgable about the topic of the article. Howard appears apposed to the approval also, but he is also not an editor in a related workgroup.

The following are active editors in the Health Sciences workgroup: User:Robert Badgett, User:Gareth Leng, User:Supten Sarbadhikari, User:Anthony.Sebastian. Perhaps one (or more) of them should be contacted for their opinion.

Of course, it may be a good idea to contact Jonas also. According to the approval process, "the existence of unanswered author critiques" is reason enough to doubt editor support. --Chris Key 19:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I was in a hurry -- I hadn't registered that *all* the subsequent edits had been in the last day or so. Hayford Peirce 20:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Authority on the squeamish

Hayford, I know of some informative images, which I would not inflict on any unexpecting reader, but would be useful to someone prepared for them and wanting that level of detail. I could set them up as external links, but, from reasonable comments you've made, I think it's a good idea to mark internal or external links with some disclaimer.

While I have distaste for the mealymouthed "viewer discretion is advised", I'm thinking of one photograph of inflammatory breast disease, which I found useful even though I can easily see how it would upset stomachs. Any suggestions on an appropriate disclaimer? Howard C. Berkowitz 18:56, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

This box contains graphic medical photos that some readers may find disturbing.
File:User Chris Key.jpg © Photo: Chris Key I'm not slacking, my code is compiling...

Who needs external links? See box on right. --Chris Key 19:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

That would work, I think, if in order to see the pix one has to *click* on the box. Hayford Peirce 20:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Very nice, Chris, although I'm not sure about the box content. :-) Howard C. Berkowitz 20:09, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Splitting it up

Having had a closer look at the article now, I think it is too deep for a useful overview under this title in a wiki environment. I thus suggest to move the sections Epidemiologic risk factors and etiology, Prevention in high-risk individuals, Screening as well as Treatment to their own articles (Risk factors for breast cancer, Breast cancer prevention, Breast cancer screening and Breast cancer treatment, respectively), and to include only a brief summary of them here. I have also moved the history section up, without any change in content. --Daniel Mietchen 21:00, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

In general, I agree. Perhaps screening should be generalized to diagnosis, to include the histopathology and genetic analysis. Howard C. Berkowitz 21:09, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I think screening merits its own article, as it is heavily discussed in the media. But yes, diagnosis would be a useful higher-order complement to that, and it would remain more focused on the technical aspects if screening is outsourced. --Daniel Mietchen 22:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Approval update

Given all of the above issues, discussed in detail in various sections, plus the fact that this was a "drive-by" nomination by an Editor who has subsequently vanished, there is no way in the world that I would consider giving this Approval on August 16th. Isn't there an Editor anywhere around who has the authority to change the Metadata? Hayford Peirce 22:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I am around and ready to remove the nomination by August 16 if I do not see the article having improved by then. I have purposefully refrained from editing it myself. --Daniel Mietchen 22:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

This question shows a problem: Assume that there were no (active) Editor appropriate for this WG. If no other Citizen is allowed to remove the template, would the nomination have to stay there forever?

On the other hand, couldn't the nomination be removed simply for formal reasons? The article has never been upgraded to status 1. --Peter Schmitt 22:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The approval process requires Constables to check with the approving Editor if there is reason to doubt support for approval. Should the Editor fail to respond to these requests, I believe that the Constables should be allowed to remove the template. Unfortunately I'm not convinced that the current policy would allow it. Another thing for the EC I guess... --Chris Key 22:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Daniel can do so for the Biology Workgroup. I suspect Bob Badgett, Anthony Sebastian, or Gareth Leng would do so, if asked, for Health Sciences. Howard C. Berkowitz 23:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)

I also thought about this problem but concluded (provisionally) that our current policy requires that approving Editors take into account comments made on the talk page, and this clearly has not taken place here (yet), so as of now the Constabulary would not be entitled to implement approval. However, as things stand, the notice would remain, since only Editors from the concerned Workgroups have the right to fiddle with approval metadata. Something to put on the to-do list for the Editorial Council, probably. --Daniel Mietchen 23:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the Constables could, should, and would remove the approval notice. And that everyone else would turn a Nelson eye to it. Why should CZ make itself look ridiculous by having an unapproved article hanging around in a green box for three years or so? Hayford Peirce 23:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict, too)

It was a theoretical question, Howard. --Peter Schmitt 23:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Approval nomination removed

The article has seen a number of improvements since it had been nominated for approval, but I still consider it not approvable, for the general reasons outlined above (and specific ones not mentioned yet, since they depend on how the general ones are being addressed). Since the original nominator has not responded to any of the points raised here on the talk page, nor to messages I sent him via his talk page and via email, I am now going to remove the approval nomination. I do hope, though, that the article will continue to receive at least some of the attention that it deserves, and I am available to discuss how it could be improved in general or with regard to specific points. --Daniel Mietchen 23:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)