Talk:Coeliac crisis
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Nice job on an important topic
I've just scanned it and it looks good. But. You'll have to rewrite at least some of it as it too closely matches the original text. [1] Can you please clean up that copyright situation fairly pronto? Basically, just say the same stuff in your own words. It's bedtime here. I'll have a good look tomorrow. But I think you've done the world a favour with this. Well done, indeed. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 20:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for taking a look at this, I try to write in own words soon MaenK.A.Talk 08:45, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- I've had another quick look but I'm on the run all day. I do believe it is a significant problem, though, and Wikipedia takes copyright breaches very seriously. [2][3][4]. If you can't get to it very quickly, it will be best to move the article out of public space until it's sorted. Do what you can, but it's no big deal to move it off article space for a while. I've inquired about the best way to do that. [5] --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- I have moved this article temporarily to my user space until I address the concerns expressed here, and I redirected Coeliac crisis to Coeliac disease MaenK.A.Talk 10:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- Excellent. Please do. This is an important article and I'm very glad that you're here. While we're talking, I haven't looked at your history, so forgive me if you already know this, but the most important guideline to grasp and apply when editing medical articles is WP:MEDRS. It expresses a preference for secondary or tertiary sources; that is, peer reviewed systematic reviews, national or international professional guidelines or university-level textbooks. I noticed on my cursory perusal of your sources that you are using a number primary sources. If there is a recent review article covering coeliac crisis, it would be really good to see it cited here. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- I have moved this article temporarily to my user space until I address the concerns expressed here, and I redirected Coeliac crisis to Coeliac disease MaenK.A.Talk 10:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
The fact that the concept isn't mentioned in any of the recent reviews makes me a bit wary. I think it would be helpful to have a strong secondary source (e.g. a textbook) that lends credence to the subject. The current version of coeliac disease discusses recalcitrant disease and the benefit of immunosuppression, and lists a number of complications in the "signs and symptoms" section. JFW | T@lk 21:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)