The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 16:28, 18 November 2007.

---

(Self nomination) This article was gradually rewritten and expanded by myself and MarcoTolo. Based on comments I received during a peer review the main article was spun off into several daughter articles. This main article has since undergone an extensive review and copyedit by Colin, Fvasconcellos and SandyGeorgia. I feel that the article now meets all of the Featured Article criteria. All comments are appreciated. --DO11.10 02:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Comments - ok, I am massaging the text a bit. Looks ok but needs a bit of Reiki to get to 'brilliant'. I will list a few things that are not straightforward fixes. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Para 1 of Causes - 'Poliovirus' is mentioned 3 times in 3 sentences, however I concede it will be tricky to address without introducing ambiguity.

I agree, it gets a bit tedious reading the same word over and over, but as you rightly point out, I was worried about intruding ambiguity here. I substituted the abbreviated "PV" for some instances of "poliovirus". Hopefully that spices it up a bit.(?)--DO11.10 18:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Factors that increase the risk of polio infection... intramuscular injection.. (huh?) I have no idea what this IM injection refers to well I'll be...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From the reference: "A number of conditions likely to involve only isolated individuals rather than whole populations are considered to increase the likelihood of paralytic illness. Among these may be listed pregnancy, previous tonsillectomy, and injections during the month before infection."--Is there a better way to word this in the article?--DO11.10 18:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:::Yeah probably - just that I am not sure what the injections refer to, any injections? Like flu shots, IM metaclopramide...steroids..If I get a chance I'll looks osme stuff up later.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I found this article... --DO11.10 04:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It wants me to log in...cheers, Casliber (talk · (UTC) contribs) 11:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh shoot sorry, try this--DO11.10 16:05, 14 November 2007

Clarified this based on the above article.--DO11.10 19:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More later. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank's Casliber. I don't think any of us three would claim to be great copyeditors, so a bit more polishing will certainly be welcome. Colin°^Talk 09:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, by all means, a bit more polish can never hurt!--DO11.10 18:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must say I'd prefer 'poliovirus' to 'PV' with some more judicious use of the word. I haven't heard it referred to as PV before (though I haven't done much with infectious diseases as such for a long time) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments-I need to read it another couple of times before I'm willing to jump on board in support. First, and I'll admit to this being a very minor issue, but wouldn't it have been nice to get GA status first? I know it's not mandated by any rules, but it's nice to see it get to one level first, even you jump to FAC right away. Second...well, so far, I don't have a second comment. The article is nicely written, and I don't see any Alternative medicine crap in the article. That's always a big issue for me. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No, the approval of one editor via the GA process is not always and need not be part of the FAC process; many experienced editors forego the GA process. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - when I read this last night, it seemed to me that the article (and especially the introduction) failed to adequately distinguish between poliovirus infection and poliomyelitis. Reading it again this evening, it has been improved through editing, but it remains a concern and should be taken into consideration with regards to further editing. (If there's no inflammation of the spinal cord, there's no "myelitis"....) - Nunh-huh 02:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While that would be logical, it is not actually the case. Disease symptoms caused by poliovirus infection are called "poliomyelitis" whether or not they actually involve inflammation of the spinal cord. There are abortive/minor illness, non-paralytic and paralytic varieties. A few sources are: Sherris Medical Microbiology (page 536 if the link dies), this e-medicine article and this CDC article.--DO11.10 04:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see no instance of an unadorned "poliomyelitis" meaning anything other than what I've stated; and if such instances do occur in a textbook or cdc document we should take care not to repeat the mistake, as it would do nothing but confuse. - Nunh-huh 06:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have reworded the "classification" section to exclude the asymptomatic infection for the term "poliomyelitis". I think the rest of the article primarily focuses on the paralytic forms. Have I missed anything here?--DO11.10 04:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• further comment - under treatment for these sort of chronic thingies we always sling in the catchphrase 'improving function' - and the idea of management of symptoms rather than cure per se. Improving comfort sounds a little too colloquial but I can't think of a better way to say it currently. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to less colloquial "relief of symptoms".--DO11.10 19:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a final interim word, I feel much better about the prose now and think that this article is in better shape than lung cancer was when it was promoted. As well as the injection issue and the point immediately above, I reckon it would be great to get a paragraph on the Polio Hall of Fame in the latter part of the history section or maybe a legacy section underneath. I am just wondering, have there been any notable movies or novels with a protagonist with polio? Can't think of one off hand. Also, in a legacy section, I'd put a statement or two along the lines of 'many notable people' have had polio - with a link to the list there. Some of them seem to credit prolonged inactivity with their interest in a particular field (eg Donald Sutherland and acting). This is a great opportunity to show human triumph thru adversity and normalising disability etc. Ian Dury is another example which comes to mind. Doesn't have to be long but I feel in a disease such as this is really important. I can help collaborate on it if you want. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on this a bit, but it will surely need some "text massaging" :). I'll post a rough draft on your talk page when I am done, please feel free to do what ever you would like to it.--DO11.10 17:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must say that I think such sections are a bit controversial. Listing people by their disabilities is not always "normalizing", as Casliber writes. In fact, it could be read as defining them through their disability rather than through whatever other achievements they happened to have made. I think that the wikilink to "list of persons with polio" is sufficient. Awadewit | talk 20:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I never said it wasn't controversial :) - ok, I like the little bit that DOI wrote on my talk page. I just feel that 3-4 lines of text on the subject is better than a see also, but look the more I think about it it isn't a huge dealbreaker so I'll consider anything from here on in as a bonus :) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ergo - Support...

• Support I have already reviewed and commented on this article over the last week (see talk page). Any issues raised have all been swiftly resolved. This is a very readable and comprehensive article on a fascinating disease. It is well supported by good daughter articles and appropriate wikilinks. The text is precise and reliably sourced. The pictures and diagrams are excellent. Colin°^Talk 13:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Pre-support comment There seems to be a bit of repetition between the second paragraphs of "Classification" and "Mechanism" (non-paralytic aseptic meningitis, etc.). Is this intentional, or did things just turn out like this? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly cannot remember how the article came together in its current form, and I know that Marco and I struggled with the organization several times. But looking at it now I see the "classification" section as sort of an overview of what happens, while the "mechanism" section details the how and/or why it happens. Is there a better way to organize it?--DO11.10 04:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaning towards support This is an excellent article - I found it greatly informative. I just have a few questions.

• The term derives from the Greek polio (πολίός), meaning "grey", myelon (µυελός), "spinal cord", and -itis, which denotes inflammation. - All the punctuation confused me in this sentence, but I'm not really sure how to fix it - semi-colons, perhaps?

Originally I think it said: The term derives from the Greek polio (πολίός), meaning "grey", myelon (µυελός), referring to the spinal cord, and -itis, which denotes inflammation. Which I personally find to be more clear. Any suggestions?--DO11.10 (talk) 22:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is better, too. Awadewit | talk 22:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Paralytic polio is classified into three types, depending on the nerves involved. Spinal polio is the most common form, characterized by asymmetric paralysis that most often involves the legs. Bulbar polio leads to weakness of muscles innervated by cranial nerves. Bulbospinal polio is a combination of bulbar and spinal paralysis. - I found the introduction of the term "paralytic polio" slightly confusing - I thought it was a different type. Would it be incorrect to say "Polio is classified into three types"?

Then there would be four: abortive polio. Colin°^Talk 13:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could we have some sort of clearer structure, then? I found the opening a bit confusing. I had to reread it. Awadewit | talk 22:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reworded this a bit...--DO11.10 (talk) 23:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Why is the page not named "polio", as that is the most common word?

A judgement call. WP:MEDMOS prefers "recognised medical name rather than the lay term", however polio is also quite acceptable in scholarly work. I'd argue that it is a shortening of the full, proper word that one would expect to find in an encyclopaedia (Encarta has poliomyelitis, Britannica appears to have separate articles on both). An analogy would be Beethoven vs Ludwig van Beethoven. Colin°^Talk 13:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It is seasonal in temperate climates, with peak transmission occurring in summer and autumn.[11] These seasonal differences are far less pronounced in tropical areas. - Why?

I can think of a few questions that you might be asking here. 1) Why is polio a seasonal disease? The answer: I don't think anyone knows, but (and I am guessing here) it probably has to do with differences in behavior and contacts that occur during the summer and autumn. It could also have to do with the virus itself. 2) Why isn't polio seasonal in the tropics? So the original source here said: "In tropical climates seasonal differences are far less pronounced." That's it. Another source says: "The virus is endemic throughout the year." I would infer that this is because seasonal differences in general are far less pronounced in tropical areas than in temperate ones.??--DO11.10 (talk) 22:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• One of those "we don't know yet" answers. I get those a lot. :) Ok. Awadewit | talk 22:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Therefore, isolation of wild poliovirus constitutes a public health emergency, and appropriate efforts to control the spread of the disease must be initiated immediately. - What are these "appropriate efforts"? This sentence seemed to be hanging off of the end of the section.

Removed "appropriate"... (this info was moved to a daughter article, but the "appropriate" reference was never removed from the sentence.)--DO11.10 (talk) 22:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't express myself clearly enough - sorry. What I meant was that this sentence introduces an entirely new topic which the article does not go on to address in that section. Awadewit | talk 22:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was meant to explain why PCR/fingerprinting is done. I've tried to clarify.--DO11.10 (talk) 23:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• While I found this article eminently readable, I wonder if it isn't a bit technical at times for the average reader (I'm thinking of my undergraduate students, for example). Have the editors thought about an "Overview" section?

Nice work on an important article. Awadewit | talk 09:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An overview section should be redundant as that is the rôle of the lead. All an extra overview section serves to do is to waste more space with duplication of info for a thrid time. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of something a bit more expansive than the lead and I don't feel that the overview would be redundant in a bad way - I feel that it would offer an explanation that the majority of readers could follow. At the moment, I'm a bit concerned about the technical level of the article. Awadewit | talk 10:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now the problem here is I am a doctor which means that there is jargon here that I will use without batting an eyelid. I believe just about any scientific concept should be able to be written in plain English. I'll have another look but may be blindsided by my job so list some words or concepts you're concerned about and we can go from there. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there's fecal-oral rroute right there at the start...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like your replacement of "asymptomatic" but await a polite replacement for "fecal-oral route" with interest :-) Actually, I'm not convinced that "fecal" and "oral" should be considered beyond the reader. Sure, they are educated terms, but they're hardly medical jargon. And the term is wikilinked too. Colin°^Talk 13:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've left an example on the article's talk page. Awadewit | talk 10:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support

This is a well researched and well written article on a very important subject. Tiny errors of grammar and spelling remain to be fixed, but these should not be allowed to prevent the article from reaching the wider readership that it deserves. User:GrahamColm-- —Preceding comment was added at 10:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Support: The Polio article Poliomyelitis should be upgraded to a featured article. The subject matter is significant: Polio survivors constitute one of the largest disabled groups in the world with estimates of 10 to 20 million polio survivors worldwide. In 1921 Franklin D. Roosevelt became totally and permanently paralyzed from the waist down with Poliomyelitis as a probable cause. In 1938 Roosevelt helped to found the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis (now known as the March of Dimes), that raised money for the rehabilitation of victims of paralytic polio, and was instrumental in funding the development of polio vaccines. The inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV) developed by Jonas Salk and the oral polio vaccine (OPV) developed by Albert Sabin are landmarks in the history of vaccine development. Polio survivors were in the forefront of the disability rights movement and pushed legislation such as the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act, and lead the Independent Living and Universal design movements.

The Polio article is well-written. It consists of a main article Poliomyelitis and seven daughter articles that go into further depth: Poliovirus, Polio vaccine, Poliomyelitis eradication, History of poliomyelitis, Post-polio syndrome, Polio Hall of Fame, and List of polio survivors. The opening two paragraphs of the main article provide an excellent summary of the subject. The body of the main article strikes the right balance between technical accuracy and readability; it is written at a college level. The article is clearly written and expertly summarizes a complex subject.

The Polio article is comprehensive and factually accurate. It covers the cause, transmission, classification, mechanism, diagnosis, prognosis, treatment, prevention, eradication and history citing credible sources, such as the Journal of the American Medical Association and historically significant research papers. The article accurately represents the relevant body of published knowledge while maintaining a neutral point of view. Other than vandalism, the article is stable, although the primary authors strive to keep the article up to date.

The polio article follows the style guidelines. The lead section summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the greater detail in the subsequent sections and daughter articles. The series effectively uses hierarchical headings and table of contents. It consistently uses formatted inline citations using footnotes. It appropriately uses images that illustrate the subject, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. It is of appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail.

As someone who has lived with the aftereffects of polio for over 52 years, I would like to thank the authors for their efforts. I have read extensively about polio over the years, both technical and general interest articles. Their Poliomyelitis article is the best written general interest article I have read on polio.

--Dan Dassow (talk) 01:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I haven't read the full article yet, but what I read so far gives little reason for opposition. One question though: How do they know over 90% of the cases is asymptomatic? People who don't have symptoms don't go to see a doctor and if they do, the doctor is unlikely to test them for a disease he has no indication of... - Mgm|^(talk) 16:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Infection by polio virus is, in most cases, asymptomatic and this has been shown by numerous prospective epidemiological studies. ^[1][2] The virus is often isolated from the faeces of children who show no symptoms. This is the case with all the enteroviruses. Exactly why so many polio infections remain asymptomatic is not fully understood but the size of the innoculum of the virus, the size of the resulting viraemia, the virulence of the infecting virus, and the presence of circulating antibodies have all been implicated . It is also clear from epidemiological studies that the same virus can cause a broad spectrum of disease from mild fever with diarrhoea to flaccid paralysis. User:GrahamColm

--GrahamColm 20:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

So they DO test people who don't show symptoms, contrary to what I would've expected. - Mgm|^(talk) 14:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, a beautiful example of what medical FAs aspire to, and one that has received sustained and careful attention. Goodness, D011.10, my contributions were utterly trivial; you didn't need to credit me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overdue support :) In my opinion, this article was FA quality by the time the Talk page reviews were finished. After Casliber's copyediting efforts and some extra changes, it has only improved. Although some interesting suggestions for further improvement have been raised, I don't think that is any reason for FA to wait—after all, there is no such thing as a finished article. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations

A well deserved FA! User:GrahamColm

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.