User talk:MMO Tracking

Air pollution country articles

Hello Mary,

I just noticed your improvements to the Air pollution article so I wondered whether you intend to improve any of the “Air pollution in ……” articles? I made a few changes to Air pollution in Turkey because I live here and have now put it in the queue for Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors. But as far as I can tell it is the only country specific air pollution article at “good article” level so far. It would be great if someone else could bring another dirty air country (maybe India or Pakistan) up to GA too so I could get ideas from that for improving the Turkey article. Or of course I welcome any direct suggestions you might have for “Air pollution in Turkey” Chidgk1 (talk) 12:03, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vital Signs 2026

Hello there. I hope you're doing well. Wanted to say thanks for working on so many core articles around health and environmental health. Are you aware of the The Vital Signs campaign? We're trying to bring all of the top-importance articles up to B-class, which mainly involved large rewrites for understandability and updates. This includes not only articles currently rated at C-class, but the entire set of 101 articles, as most require at least a bit of TLC to be up-to-date and understandable. I'd love to see you join, if only to indicate which articles are ready for a second pair of eyes wrt to understandability. Getting that one right on your own is incredibly difficult. Research has shown that people almost always overestimate the knowledge in others when they are experts. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:27, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Femke:, thanks for the kind words. I'm happy to join. I don't feel I have the expertise to be giving pages a final review, but I am happy to help with initial stages of going over them to see what is out of date and needs updating. What is the best way to indicate this for The Vital Signs campaign? Should I put a note on the topic list indicating I've done initial updates and asking for further review to check that I've gotten it right? I like the notation that's been added to indicate my WiR work. Best wishes, MMO Tracking (talk) 12:48, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that would be super helpful. And if you've got more rewrites planned later in the year, you can put your name down as volunteer in the penultimate column as well. I'm planning to check in on all the articles around female-dominated diseases, COVID and environmental health if time allows, and am always happy to give feedback like I did at Talk:Chronic_obstructive_pulmonary_disease#Understandability. I'm slowly learning too much about medicine to be the best assessor of understandability, but I hope that does help. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:27, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

COPD talk message

Hello! Could you please respond to the talk page message I left. I see you're still adding overly complicated text at COPD, such as talking about "rescue medication" [1], without replying to my concerns that these edits make the article much too complicated. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:23, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Particulate matter

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Particulate matter, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A generic name error. References show this error when author or editor name parameters use place-holder names. Please edit the article to include the source's actual author or editor name. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 23:11, 17 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Some guidance on understandability

Hi there. I think we're maybe halfway in getting migraine to be understandable :D. I'm trying to further update the article at the same time, as that might help get rid of further jargon. For the last year or so, I've been working on better guidance for working on technical articles: Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable/Workshop. The new guideline text almost passed in a previous RfC, and have been working on integrating feedback from the RfC. That is, it might not yet reflect consensus. Compared to the previous guideline text however, it gives much more practical tips on how to write accessibly. Might be useful in preventing you from having to overhaul an article twice, first for accuracy and then for understandability.

I'm also keen on getting feedback on the workshop text. I hope to bring it to RfC again after additional feedback rounds from a few more editors. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:27, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]