Talk:Immune system

MEDDATE
Just leaving a note here about the age of some of the books: IN:MEDDATE prefers recent sources, and anyone who's worked much on medicine-related articles has probably had the experience of someone reverting their additions because the source is more than 5 or 10 years old.

There was a discussion about this at Ingenpedia talk:Ingenproject Medicine, and we agreed that it was acceptable to cite high-quality older sources for the specific basic, unchanging content (e.g., names of cells) in question, and in one case, to cite a high-quality older source that was freely available to readers than to cite the paywalled newer versions that are available to a couple of editors. This should therefore be considered in compliance with IN:MEDRS's advice on sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:47, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I think there's an important distinction between an older, quality source that has been in place for a decade, and an older source that someone is trying to add fresh (particularly when newer, updated sources are available). An admirable goal would be to have all of our medical content sourced to recent high-quality sources, but we have limited editor resources and it sometimes feels like sticking your thumb in the dyke: I'd be satisfied if I thought the number of older sources at least wasn't increasing. --RexxS (talk) 19:27, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I think there's an important distinction between an older, quality source that has been in place for a decade, and an older source that someone is trying to add fresh (particularly when newer, updated sources are available). An admirable goal would be to have all of our medical content sourced to recent high-quality sources, but we have limited editor resources and it sometimes feels like sticking your thumb in the dyke: I'd be satisfied if I thought the number of older sources at least wasn't increasing. --RexxS (talk) 19:27, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Image for "Helper T cells" subsection
This image is problematic for reasons I stated above in Image review. I'm tempted to create a diagram showing a CD4+ T cell at center, with an array of functions depicted around it - in the 4 corners, perhaps - cytotoxic ("killer") CD8+ T cell licensing, delayed type hypersensitivity using interferon gamma and granulomatous inflammation as a really important example (it's the basis of the Mantoux test for latent TB), B cell help in the germinal center reaction (the basis for conjugate vaccines that have been so dramatically effective, and the regulatory T cell role. I'll do my best to make it as simple/accessible as desired. Any thoughts? &mdash; soupvector (talk) 02:16, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. Thanks. Are you considering something like this ? Graham Beards (talk) 08:42, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, figure 2 in that paper is the sort of thing I was thinking of, but is a bit more detailed perhaps than we need for this article. &mdash; soupvector (talk) 13:41, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Excellent. Thanks. Graham Beards (talk) 18:33, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Cell structure addition
this appears to be a COI addition; is it needed, and is it in the right place? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  15:44, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * PS, if I am unable to decipher why this content is there, perhaps our readers won't either. And the last sentence is uncited, just as we are asking Wehwalt to have a look as to swapping this in to TFA ... and it's a one-paragraph section. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  15:51, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It's IN:RECENT that can be deleted. I agree, it doesn't help the reader.Graham Beards (talk) 16:40, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Concern raised at IN:ERRORS
Please see here. I'd be grateful if someone would post a response there, though much of it may be a matter for this talk page.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:21, 30 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't regard any of the concerns to be errors.
 * With regard to the use of the definite article, this is what our sources use; see for example: Sompayrac L (2019). How the immune system works. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN 978-1-119-54212-4. OCLC 1083261548. (my emphasis).
 * As for the use of the word "diseases". The immune system is not only important in "infectious disease" and "damage", among others in plays a role in embryology. I think, for the Lead, it's ok to lack a little precision here.
 * It's not really a medical topic; it's biology.
 * "The figure legend contains no errors. But an improved legend could be proposed on the article's Talk Page.
 * The "other mechanisms that protect us from harm" have nothing at all to do with immunity. We draw the line where our sources do. Again see Sompayrac.
 * The article is stable, and has been for years. The improvements and updates that have been made for its second time as TFA, should not be regarded as symptom of instability.
 * Graham Beards (talk) 15:16, 30 December 2020 (UTC)