` ::I can help you identify sources if you need help finding them, please message me at my talk page. Forgive me for being critical on the article, but right now I see the sentence ``A Harvard University study concluded, 'the impact of interstitial cystitis on quality of life is severe and debilitating' `` in the lead. I don't know of a reason to name drop ``Harvard`` like this (see WP:MEDREV). Tha paper is from 2000 and is a primary research paper. Per WP:MEDDATE, we try to use recent review articles if possible. I see it has been cited by three review articles. The most recent is PMID 19548999 ``Clinical guidelines for interstitial cystitis and hypersensitive bladder syndrome``. That would be a good source to rewrite content with. And then we have ``A Harvard Medical School guide...``, which sounds like further name dropping and it is cited to a teriary source, which is not ideal in this case. A clinical practice guideline is one type of secondary WP:MEDRS and review articles are another. These should be cited for most of the content in a medical article (when they can be located). I came here because I noticed this article was put up for good article review. In my opinion it lacks basic verifiability because it is tagged as having potentially self published material, and in general strays from the guideline of WP:MEDRS, by citing questionable sources such as old primary research. For example, the statement ``Neuromodulation can be successful in treating IC/BPS symptoms, including pain`` is cited to a 1994 paper. That's not how we write articles, unfortunately.   `