# Talk:Common cold

This review is transcluded from Talk:Common cold/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 21:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments
"While a cough and a fever indicate a higher likelihood of influenza in adults, there is a great deal of similarity between these two conditions" - different viruses? (Maybe could say a little more about the difference?)
"it may also be related to changes in the respiratory system that results in greater susceptibility" - can this be explained more?
"This is believed to be due primarily to increased time spent indoors,..." - is there a way of getting rid of the passive voice? (There are other examples also.)
Herd immunity - Doesn't this apply to the prevalence of vaccinations? is there a vaccination for the cold?
No, it does not apply only to vaccine-derived immunity, but naturally acquired immunity too. (See; Fine P, Eames K, Heymann DL (2011). ""Herd immunity": a rough guide". Clinical Infectious Diseases : an Official Publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America. 52 (7): 911–6. doi:10.1093/cid/cir007. PMID 21427399. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)). Graham Colm (talk) 21:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps the text in the link Herd immunity is misleading?  It's under the general category of "Cause", so the impression is that people herded together cause the spread of the cold virus, when the opposite is meant if the link is actually read.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MathewTownsend (talk • contribs) 
I am not sure if my clarification helped.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
::::Perhaps the text in the link Herd immunity is misleading?  It's under the general category of "Cause", so the impression is that people herded together cause the spread of the cold virus, when the opposite is meant if the link is actually read. Fixed I see.

Yes it did. We got caught in an edit conflict.
"regarding BTA-798" - what is BTA-798?  - could "regarding" be changed to "to"?
MathewTownsend (talk) 21:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
GA review-see WP:WIAGA for  criteria (and here for what they are not)

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose: clear and concise, correct spelling and grammar:

B. Complies with  MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Provides references to all sources: 

B. Provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary: 

C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Main aspects are addressed: 

B. Remains focused: 

Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 

A very informative and helpful article. (Even though I don't get colds, everyone around me does!) Good work! Congratulations! MathewTownsend (talk) 23:03, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
The article says "The primary method of prevention is by hand washing". I don't know if this means I can prevent other people catching my cold if I wash my hands, or if it means other people can stop themselves catching my cold if they wash their hands, or if it means I can prevent myself catching other people's colds if I wash my hands. Or does it mean I can prevent the symptoms getting very bad, after I catch a cold, by washing my hands?86.131.54.100 (talk) 22:12, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

The text: "There is no vaccine for the common cold" is no longer accurate since there are now vaccines for some strains of Coronavirus. RRFreeman (talk) 17:41, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

The covid-19 vaccine impacts the virus itself, the common cold is a disease (ie the reaction to the virus) so it has no vaccine as so many virial strains impact it. 78.137.138.130 (talk) 08:48, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Please change the url of current ref. no. [34], the broken link of [1] to the valid url [2]. Con-struct (talk) 08:23, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

It should really be removed entirely as it is not an acceptable source for Wikipedia. Bon courage (talk) 08:29, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

A useful checklist is provided by the European Position Paper on Rhinosinusitis and Nasal Polyps (EPOS) consensus, which recommends the use of a combination of signs and symptoms to identify acute bacterial rhinosinusitis (ABRS), diagnosed when ≥3 of five criteria are present: Discolored discharge with a unilateral predominance; Severe local pain; Fever ≥38°C; Double sickening; Elevation of C-reactive protein (CRP) or erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR). 

BlueBellTree (talk) 05:39, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

A useful checklist is provided by the European Position Paper on Rhinosinusitis and Nasal Polyps (EPOS) consensus, which recommends the use of a combination of signs and symptoms to identify acute bacterial rhinosinusitis (ABRS), diagnosed when ≥3 of five criteria are present: Discolored discharge with a unilateral predominance; Severe local pain; Fever ≥38°C; Double sickening; Elevation of C-reactive protein (CRP) or erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR). * DOI: 10.4193/Rhin20.600 BlueBellTree (talk) 14:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion @BlueBellTree, but I'm afraid I've reverted this for now, as I don't think it's right for Wikipedia in its current form. See WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not a 'how to' guide, medical textbook or instruction manual. Additions to this article should be descriptive of notable facts about the common cold. There is perhaps potential to expand 'diagnosis' section of this article to say a little more than it currently does about differential diagnosis. But it would need to lay out in an encyclopedic style what other illnesses are difficult to distinguish from the common cold, and why, while demonstrating notability and relevance. I think it's unlikely we would have enough encyclopedic content to need a separate subsection for one specific differential diagnosis. Joe D (t) 17:16, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for your guidance. Im still learning here. I fitted some of the information in under the paragraph on viruses and bacteria and it seems to fit better there. BlueBellTree (talk) 18:45, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

"Signs and symptoms may appear in as little as two days after exposure to the virus.[6]"
"Usual onset	~2 days from exposure[6]" (in info box)
Probably nobody will be bother to fix it, which is why Wikipedia sucks...
86.123.193.170 (talk) 21:42, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Not a contradiction because the two statements say the same thing and are sourced to the same reference. If you want to modify how it reads, propose a change here (add a source, if needed) or WP:FIXIT yourself. Zefr (talk) 22:09, 23 September 2024 (UTC)