# Talk:SENSOR-Pesticides

Added some more sections today, but I'm still working on it. Mmagdalene722 (talk) 19:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Added more content.  I know the references are not in the correct format; I plan to correct this after I have finished adding content.Mmagdalene722 (talk) 19:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I also think it deserved to be bumped to C class at this point.  However, I encourage more experienced Wikipedians to modify as necessary.Mmagdalene722 (talk) 19:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I put the "Case definition" subsection back in, though it's much shorter now than it was originally.  With surveillance programs, it's important to include the case definition that is used to define and collect cases, because a different case definition could arguably lead to different data.  I've shortened and simplified it so that it doesn't have all the jargon or seem like a "how-to" section.  Mmagdalene722 (talk) 12:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I understand that case definitions are important to the work you do with SENSOR-Pesticides, but that fact alone does not merit inclusion in a WP article. Primary sources aren't seen as sufficient for sourcing, but secondary sources—especially those independent of the subject—are solid. For example, I saw the JAMA publication highlighted aspects of SENSOR-Pesticides (by editors allowing some SENSOR-Pesticides self-citations). (I haven't perused it to see if it mentions case definitions.) Please consider using the publication (as it is the best evidence I have seen of SENSOR's notability) as a guide for what things others will care about. You can simply site the JAMA article for these statements about SENSOR, without citing the primary sources directly. I'm not arguing against the case definition section itself at this point, just trying to help you understand how this place works, as you are coming into editing this article as an insider of SENSOR-Pesticides. Thanks. Wervo (talk) 14:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
The JAMA article doesn't give any information on the case definition used by SENSOR. However, there's a book chapter in the Handbook of Pesticide Toxicology (an academic textbook independent of the program) that describes SENSOR and its case definition.  I'll replaced the Severity Index and Standardized variables references with references to that book chapter, and include the links to the case definition and standardized variables document in the "External Links" section. Mmagdalene722 (talk) 15:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


### "Choice of words" issues
I've noticed that there seems to be a disagreement about stating that the SENSOR program specifically did something, e.g. phrases such as 'SENSOR-Pesticides published an article.'  This may be contributing to the confusion as to why I've been putting certain sections in the article.  SENSOR is run (or perhaps a better word is "administered" or "managed") by a team of epidemiologists and researchers at NIOSH CDC.  The program is state-based, meaning the state public health departments are the entities that conduct the surveillance and collect the data.  NIOSH scientists collect it, combine it, and correct it (i.e. fill in any missing details).  The official program website explains it as follows:

The mission of the [SENSOR] program is to build and maintain occupational illness and injury surveillance capacity within state health departments. Under this program, NIOSH provides cooperative agreement funding and technical support to state health departments to conduct surveillance... Health departments in six states (California, Iowa, Michigan, New York, Texas, and Washington) receive NIOSH funding and technical support to bolster pesticide-related illness and injury surveillance. Six additional states are unfunded SENSOR-Pesticides partners and receive technical support from NIOSH (Arizona, Florida, Louisiana, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Oregon). (from the SENSOR-Pesticides program webpage)
Thus, the program is composed of personnel on both the federal and state level who collaborate to publish the research, but they are all participants in the program (i.e. just because the primary author works for a state health department rather than the federal gov't doesn't mean it's not published by the program).  How exactly should we go about wording this?  Mmagdalene722 (talk) 15:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

My concern has been to stick to the sources. If the source doesn't bother to mention it was authored by SENSOR people then why should we? My edit here was motivated by that point. To say "published by SENSOR-Pesticides" is awkward and incorrect in my mind. See the "Reported by:" section, not a mention of SENSOR. Contrast that with this. Those studies are recognized (by independent reliable sources) to have concrete organizations that submitted the work for publication (or self-published). Perhaps SENSOR just loses out in this regard as it is more of a "loose affiliation"? Not sure. Also, every time SENSOR affiliated people have work published in MMWR isn't automatically reason for inclusion in the encyclopedia. MMWR is published by CDC, which is not independent from SENSOR. Independent publishing is preferred. (Thus my previous recommendations about the JAMA publication.) Wervo (talk) 22:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
In the MMWR article that you're questioning, all of the authors participate in the SENSOR-Pesticides program: the state public health officials (except CDPR) work for state partner health departments, and the last 2 authors (Calvert and Luckhaupt) are NIOSH employees and work for the program on a national level.  All of the articles in question are published by scientists who work with SENSOR, and the data used is SENSOR data.  However, SENSOR isn't any kind of official professional society or assocation, which is why it doesn't get named.  So maybe the best course of action is to say something like "scientists and officials from the SENSOR-Pesticides program" or something like that.
The CDC's MMWR is still considered a reputable source in the scientific community, and its articles are cited all the time by research published in independent journals.  Just because it's affiliated with the CDC doesn't mean it's a primary source, or that it's not reputable - it still goes through a rigorous peer-review process. The paragraphs in the "impact" section aren't there just because we got an MMWR article published - I felt like they had some kind of significant impact:
Florida Medfly Eradication Program: influenced the USDA in changing its Medfly control strategy
Pesticide use in schools: generated media coverage and moved parents and legislators to call for less pesticides and more IPM in schools
Birth defects in FL and NC: inspired legislation in both NC and FL
Total release foggers: inspired legislative change in NY
These are the kinds of things that make the program significant, and why it even has a Wikipedia article in the first place.  If all SENSOR does is publish journal articles, then why does it have an article here?  That's the point.  Mmagdalene722 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 12:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC).

Right now, the sentence "The article generated significant media coverage.[22][23][24]" is a WP:SYNTHESIS/WP:OR sentence because of the word significant, in my opinion. The word significant was not in any media source I saw cited. I have removed it with this edit. Wervo (talk) 01:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to find more sources for that, since my supervisor said it generated "significant" coverage - unfortunately, he's out of the office.  If I can find more sources, I'll modify accordingly.Mmagdalene722 (talk) 12:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
OK thanks. Yes, for content to be here, it needs to be verified by reliable sources. Wervo (talk) 00:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

As one can verify with today's featured article, the ultimate goal here is to have no spaces between inline citations (the numbers given to notes or references) on WP. So please do not revert this formatting, as it is standard. Formatting when it comes to citing sources varies, but links to full text journal articles and doi's are very helpful. Adding doi's to appropriate sources like this doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2008.03.001 at the end of journal article references would strengthen the references. Wervo (talk) 01:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll go through and add doi's as soon as I'm finished with the bulk of the article, as I'd rather go through and do them all at once.  It'll be time-consuming, for sure, so don't worry about it - I'll take care of it. Mmagdalene722 (talk) 16:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Also, the dates of retrieval of references can be de-linked. Wervo (talk) 15:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I thought it would be best to bring any concerns about conflicts of interest out in the open.  I am currently working with the SENSOR-Pesticides program through a one-year fellowship provided by non-profit public health organization.  I am not a permanent employee of NIOSH, and my fellowship stipend is provided by the outside organization.  This article was originally created by the fellow who held my position last year, and my supervisor has requested that I expand and improve the article so as to raise the article's rating on the quality scale.I believe the potential for bias here is minimal, as SENSOR is a surveillance research program with no regulatory authority and minimal public visibility.  However, I understand that there is still potential for a COI issue, which is why I added the article to the US Government project (to make it visible to other users in the project) and why I have solicited the advice and assistance of other users (e.g. Wervo).  Also, if the ultimate goal is to raise the article's quality rating, then it arguably has to be approved by other users as using NPOV.  I'd also like to point out that in writing the "Pesticide use in schools" subsection, I specifically drew attention to an news article that quoted criticism of the paper in question.I apologize for not saying anything until now, but I'm very new to the Wikipedia community, and I only just now read found the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline. My thanks to the user who brought it my attention. Mmagdalene722 (talk) 13:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

No need to apologize as you just found out about the COI guideline. Thanks for opening up a discussion. Wervo (talk) 15:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The current sentence, "Surveillance of pesticide-related injuries and illnesses is recommended by several national agencies,[5] including the American Medical Association,[6] the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists (CSTE),[7] the Pew Environmental Health Commission,[8] and the Government Accountability Office.[9][10][11]" implies to me that these organizations lobbied SENSOR-Pesticides into existence. Can we get a more explicit source for this if this is the case? As the section is, I am dissatisfied, because there is no mention of SENSOR itself. It is so general it becomes vague, unspecific, awkward, etc... Not sure what to do to improve this gap... (Maybe the JAMA publication can help?) Wervo (talk) 16:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Their recommendations aren't for the SENSOR program specifically.  These organizations call for the surveillance of pesticide poisonings in general, because it's an important public health issue - they just want somebody to do it, and aren't necessarily referring to SENSOR.  The section is meant to provide justification for the program's existence and operation - in other words, why it's imporant, which is why it is titled "Importance." Mmagdalene722 (talk) 15:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps a subsection in surveillance and/or a new article like Pesticide surveillance would be more appropriate? It doesn't mention SENSOR directly. I understand that this added background explains your organization's raison d'être and is important within... yet we have to keep in mind that not every insight of an insider is appropriate for a focused encyclopedia article. Wervo (talk) 22:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
You may be right.  Writing a separate article on pesticide poisoning surveillance would be a massive undertaking...there are hundreds of organizations that devote some part of their resources to it, so having a subsection on each one might be excessive for an article.  Does anyone else have any input on whether this section should be included?  Mmagdalene722 (talk) 17:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I just came here from a list of style RfCs.  The text is in the "background" section, and seems appropriate there.  It's clearly relevant without implying a causal link to policy.  But certainly creating a general article on pesticide monitoring, beginning with environmental and health background, and then dividing the situation including responsible bodies by country, would be great. At the moment I notice that the article doesn't seem to even link to the pesticide article.  --Cedderstk
Oops!  There used to be a wikilink there, and somehow it got removed; I just put it back in.  Thanks for the heads up.  Mmagdalene722 (talk) 19:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
(RfC tag deleted 05 Nov 2009) MMagdalene722talk to me 15:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I've removed the extra RfC tag (this isn't a question about changing a policy or style page, so it didn't apply), and added what I think is the question that was intended from the above comments.  Please feel free to directly edit the question to better explain things to other editors.  Whatever you type between the {{rfc tag|sci}} and the time/date stamp is what the editors will read and respond to, so you want it to be a good (short, interesting, specific) "advertisement" for the question you're asking.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, you requested input on my talk page.  I think the sentence is ok as it is, but I can see the complaint.  It sounds like the OP is saying it's not clear enough how this statement relates to the subject of the article.  If that's the case, the rationale should be made specific: "Before SENSOR existed, there was a need for a pesticide-monitoring program; such a program was recommended by the CDC..."  If you can't find any sources to back up such a specific claim, I think another way to deal with this is to make the timing of these recommendations specific: "As early as 1989, the CDC recommended..."  If the recommendations predate the existence of the program, bada bing.  You could even get away with maybe a little "as a result, in 1995 the SENSOR program was developed..." but you'd need a source to verify that the program was indeed developed at least in part in response to these calls. In general I think the article's attempt to justify the existence of its subject or show that there was a need for the program prior to its existence is valid. Did you look at other articles about government programs to get ideas about how they do this (e.g. FDA, CDC)?  delldot ∇. 14:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


### Peer Review
I've opened up the article for peer review and have gotten responses from several (very kind) editors.  Several of them actually said that they thought the background section of the article should be expanded to include more information on pesticide poisoning in specific industries (see comments from Colin and Casliber on the peer review page).  In response to their comments, I've expanded it with the aforementioned information.  MMagdalene722talk to me 15:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It looks good expanded, but I still see more relevance for the background of pesticide surveillance to be a subsection in Clinical surveillance and then incorporated here in the spirit of WP:SS. Otherwise, it implies SENSOR-Pesticides is the "be-all and end-all" on the matter, which is pompous, in my opinion, even if true. The background is not a history section on your organization, it is general in nature. My suggestion is to find a few more refs (to make it more global if possible) and just copy and paste what is here there. Then maybe trim a sentence or two or three here and put a Wikipedia:Mos#Main_article_link under this article's background to that section. Of course, you could link back over here (and not just be a see also) and possibly get more hits that way. Wervo (talk) 03:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

This edit added a lot of content, that at the moment discusses much not directly related to SENSOR (and at this point I am not sure how appropriate mentioning SENSOR is at all in this section). I do not see how this is WP:DUE. Please discuss to what extent reliable sources attribute the Florida Medfly Eradication Program to SENSOR-Pesticides. I am not sure this is appropriate. It appears this content would be better off at the Florida Department of Agriculture. Please discuss. Wervo (talk) 16:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The reason I put it in the article was because the MMWR article was written as a joint effort between SENSOR researchers and officials at the Florida Department of Public Health, which is a state partner of SENSOR.  After the article was published, the same recommendations it contained for Medfly eradication were incorporated into the USDA's environmental impact statement on Medfly control.  The article generated attention toward the poisoning incidents, which pressured the USDA to modify their approach to Medfly eradication. Mmagdalene722 (talk) 15:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
OK. I don't see how a sentence or two saying what's in the MMWR and what impact it had such would hurt the article (provided it is sourced of course). The intro and all the detail just seemed over-the-top (like self-promotion). Thanks. Wervo (talk) 00:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I've modified the section to make it more concise and remove some of the stronger language.  My intention was to give some background information on the eradication program to provide a better understanding of the context of the MMWR article. Mmagdalene722 (talk) 15:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:EL: "More than one official link should be provided only when the additional links provide the reader with unique content and are not prominently linked from other official websites." It is not necessary to put links for each individual state's pesticide surveillance page because the official SENSOR page links to all of them.  This was previously brought up on my talk page: I had listed the page for each participating state and was requested to trim the External links section.  MMagdalene722talk to me 20:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:SENSOR-Pesticides/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Jimfbleak -  talk to me? 16:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
OK, just setting up page, review soon Jimfbleak -  talk to me? 16:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Technical check. No dabs, no deadlinks. Images have WP:alt text, but it does not describe the image for an unsighted or partially sighted reader. For example, the fly alt text names the insect, which repeats the caption, but does not describe it. Similarly with the other images, the logo etc  need to be described Jimfbleak -  talk to me? 16:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 DoneI wasn't quite sure what ALT text was for.  Fixed now.
Ref check -refs look good, but a query about ref 40. If Harrington is a reliable source, you need to make it clear why Jimfbleak -  talk to me? 16:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Gene Harrington is a committee head for the National Pest Management Association.  He keeps a list of states that have IPM requirements for schools that he e-mails out to a list of people in federal and state government that work in pesticide regulation.  The list isn't available publicly - he sent it to my supervisor.  How should I explain this - a footnote?
See my change to the ref, and check if you're happy with it Jimfbleak -  talk to me? 15:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Looks good.  Thanks!  MMagdalene722talk to me 15:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Most of first paragraph of "History" lacks a reference. This is important because it makes significant claims about state and SENSOR activities
I've explained that in the peer review - basically, all of that information comes from the first source cited.  Should I repeat the citation for subsequent sentences?
I'd be inclined to move the ref to the end of the text is referencing Jimfbleak -  talk to me? 15:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 Done
Last sentence of "Case definition" lacks a ref, not so critical, but shouldn't be difficult to find one
 Done
Several articles have attracted media attention and motivated legislative or other governmental action. If that's the case, it should be easy to reference some
The subsequent paragraphs are meant to explain that.  Should I cite sources for that sentence anyway?
Florida Medfly Eradication Program is capitalisation correct?
Yes.
Government Accountability Office references seem strangely formatted. I would have expected quotation marks for an article title or italics for a publication title somewhere?
 Done
No serious problems with content or text. I made these changes to fix typos, avoid repetition of words, or similar minor stylistic issues. Please check that you are happy with these
Heh.  Good for the most part, except I think you're probably the fifth person that has changed disinsection to disinfection, thinking it's a typo.  "Disinsection" is a technical term referring specifically to the decontamination of aircraft for customs.  I changed it back.  :-)
Oops, the hidden text and the stub are a good idea {: Jimfbleak -  talk to me? 15:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
The article is clearly of GA quality, and I'll pass it when the issues above are resolved. Let me know if there are any problems Jimfbleak -  talk to me? 07:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.: 
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
Overall:
Pass/Fail:  
Hooray!  Thanks very much!  MMagdalene722talk to me 15:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure, it always helps when you can see the articles nearly there anyway 17:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The user who brought this article to GA status will no longer be in change of it after July 15, 2010.  After that date, please notify me on my talk page if the GA status is called into question.Gmcalvert (talk) 18:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on SENSOR-Pesticides. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090831064941/http://www.epa.gov/oppbead1/pestsales/01pestsales/market_estimates2001.pdf to http://www.epa.gov/oppbead1/pestsales/01pestsales/market_estimates2001.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081010195749/http://www.epa.gov/oppbead1/pestsales/99pestsales/market_estimates1999.pdf to http://www.epa.gov/oppbead1/pestsales/99pestsales/market_estimates1999.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061010195126/http://www.epa.gov/oppbead1/pestsales/97pestsales/market_estimates1997.pdf to http://www.epa.gov/oppbead1/pestsales/97pestsales/market_estimates1997.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061010195052/http://www.epa.gov/oppbead1/pestsales/95pestsales/market_estimates1995.pdf to http://www.epa.gov/oppbead1/pestsales/95pestsales/market_estimates1995.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726155454/http://www.cste.org/ps/1996/1996-15.htm to http://www.cste.org/ps/1996/1996-15.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080705051550/http://news.ufl.edu/1997/06/27/spray/ to http://news.ufl.edu/1997/06/27/spray/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080508014233/http://migration.ucdavis.edu/rmn/more.php?id=1062_0_3_0 to http://migration.ucdavis.edu/RMN/more.php?id=1062_0_3_0
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100416231729/http://www.ncdhhs.gov/pressrel/2008/2008-04-23-pesticideexposure.pdf to http://www.ncdhhs.gov/pressrel/2008/2008-04-23-pesticideexposure.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091008065534/http://www.dec.ny.gov/press/48084.html to http://www.dec.ny.gov/press/48084.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:18, 3 July 2017 (UTC)