Talk:Dengue fever

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Featured articleDengue fever is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 5, 2011.
In the news Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 14, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
January 16, 2011Good article nomineeListed
July 4, 2011Featured article candidatePromoted
In the news A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on February 24, 2004.
Current status: Featured article

Biological weapon

Newone do you have a source for that? I haven't been able to find one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:24, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

None of these seem helpful here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:14, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I think Newone is adding navboxes to the pages they carry links to. The problem is the navboxes often contain problematic links, and no one is watching the navboxes. I've removed the navboxes in question, and will remove the Dengue links from each as well. Ajpolino (talk) 22:27, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Current photo

I personally can't tell there even is a rash in the current picture Denguerash.JPG. Is there a different one we can use? Toobigtokale (talk) 21:49, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it is a problem with your screen resolution; I see it fine (and I've had dengue, and that's just what it looks like). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:53, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Got a good screen; just a subjective thing. If disagree then no worries Toobigtokale (talk) 04:56, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article review needed

There has been a maintenance tag on the article for two years, and almost all of the sources are outdated, and in breach of WP:MEDDATE. Listing at WP:FARGIVEN. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:23, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia Review in progress. As you say, many sources are out of date. There's also too much reference to primary sources, many of which are paywalled. There are lots of good secondary sources available currently, perhaps this is an improvement since the last review. Bob (talk) 12:26, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Serotype 1 to 4, and maybe 5

I have downgraded references to a fifth serotype. It appears to have arisen as an unconfirmed single occurrence about 10 years ago; current sources only list four serotypes. Bob (talk) 17:42, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Diagnosis and treatment

I'll soon get to review these sections:

  • Diagnosis
  • Laboratory tests (to be demoted from section to paragraph)
  • Management (to be renamed Treatment)

They currently read like a medical textbook - lots of very specific detail which someone a few years ago put a lot of effort into compiling. I hate to replace large chunks of another editor's work. I don't have access to some of the sources nor am I confident I would understand them well enough. But I think WP:TECHNICAL, WP:ORIGINAL, and WP:NOTTEXTBOOK apply and these sections should be updated, trimmed and simplified. Bob (talk) 18:27, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]