Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Subcutaneous emphysema/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted 00:04, 21 May 2008.
Subcutaneous emphysema edit
Self-nominator: I'm nominating this article for featured article because I feel that it meets the specified criteria for a FA. It's been expanded to be a reliable article with few facts missing. The only worrying aspect, for me, is perhaps it is too short, but i'll leave all that to you guys as this is my first nomination. Regards, CycloneNimrodTalk? 18:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Quick comment for now. You should consider re-structuring the sections as per Wikipedia:MEDMOS#Diseases. More from me later. GrahamColmTalk 18:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done thanks to yours and SandyGeorgia's comment (on the talk page). Regards, CycloneNimrodTalk? 18:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My, that was quick! GrahamColmTalk 18:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I do try ;) Regards, CycloneNimrodTalk? 18:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I Oppose for now. The quality of the prose is not to FA standard and there's much redundancy. I've made some suggestions. [1]. The use of medical terminology might be excessive and a barrier to some readers. The use of the the word common worries me a little as this condition is not common. (There might be a WP:NPOV problem here). I suggest a copy-edit and a fresh pair of eyes. GrahamColmTalk 18:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Current ref 5 "Oxford Concise Medical Dictionary" ... is lacking a page number
- Other than that picky item, sources look good. Links checked out fine with the tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments The text is too difficult for the general reader, much of it reading like a medical textbook. You need to examine every use of jargon and try to either avoid it or explain it and minimise its reuse. Also, be careful with using "or" when giving a lay alternative to jargon. It can easily be interpreted as an alternative option rather than an alternative wording. I'm concerned about the choice of sources, which don't seem the most obvious choice of papers and books should one have access to a library or bookstore. Relying on Google Books restricts choice. Quick reference and study aids aren't the best medical books you could use. A specialist textbook could have a chapter on this subject that a library would allow you to photocopy and could form a solid foundation for the article. For example, ref 8 (nursing handbook) deals with SE after chest surgery but is cited for SE symptoms in general. The treatment outlined in ref 7 (diving handbook)--breathing oxygen--may not be appropriate for other causes of SE. Quite a number of the papers are case notes which, although they often give some background on the condition, aren't a first choice for a quality source. A review paper would be better. There's some confusion in the article over whether SE is easy to detect by hand or commonly detected by x-ray. I'm no medic so have no idea what the correct thing should be, but you don't do an x-ray if you have already figured it out easily by touch. The word "commonly" appears a lot. The statement "Subcutaneous emphysema is a common result of surgery" seems most unlikely. Help to reader know if this is rare (which I suspect it is) and if so, try to avoid saying "common". Given the limitations of the sources, I suspect the article is neither comprehensive or fully accurate. A peer-review by a medic with experience and better books would help. Colin°Talk 22:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Colin, thanks for your thorough review. We've been working on simplifying the article for laypersons usage (in regards to jargon) over the past few days although it clearly needs some more work from what you've said. I'm not quite sure what your concern is over references, is it all of them or just those linked to Google Books or other odd textbooks like the nursing book? If the former is your concern, i'm confused as the majority are peer-reviewed articles which are, as a whole, very reliable. I'll have to disagree with your statement "you don't do an x-ray if you have already figured it out easily by touch." and say, for example, if you feel a lump, you do not know it is cancerous (and even though you may suspect cancer, you still need the confirmation). SE is fairly common after surgery, it's just a lot of the time it isn't noticed. This shouldn't be all that surprising as surgery is essentially trauma to the body and it leaves very open wounds for air to get trapped in. Despite this, i'll get to work on correcting the ambiguity of the article and removing confusion. Thanks again for your comments. Regards, CycloneNimrodTalk? 22:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks much Colin, these comments are very sound. I think the question of whether it's easy or hard to diagnose has to do with how severe a case it is (for example, here's an easy case to diagnose :P). You're right, I did have trouble finding reviews. Where I used case reports, I only used information from the parts of the article that were reviewing other data, nothing that the authors were reporting from their own findings. I too will work on making it more lay accessible and addressing your other concerns, thanks again for the input. delldot talk 22:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I may not have much time on WP for the next few days. Your sources aren't so bad that you fail WP:V but aren't the top choice per WP:MEDRS. Plus, I think you may be stretching specific sources into more general use. I understand what you are saying about the use of case notes' background material and that's fine as far as it goes. The question is whether relying on such sources "exemplifies our very best work" and I'm afraid it is only second best IMO. You could try posting a request at WP:MED to see if one of the wikidocs would collaborate. Colin°Talk 23:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Image:CavidadePleuralDrenada.JPG needs a verifiable source per WP:IUP. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 03:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The image's initial uploader (to pt.wikipedia) appears to be active on commons and on the Portuguese wikipedia. They also appear to speak English, or at least upload images with english descriptions. Someone may want to contact the user directly at Commons:User talk:Robertolyra, or contact someone here at Wikipedia:Portuguese-speaking Wikipedians' notice board, or from Category:User pt. I've added information tags and updated the categories on that image, but otherwise that is the only image problem I saw. -Optigan13 (talk) 04:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fvasconcellos (talk · contribs) will probably review this article, and speaks Portuguese. If you can't reach him, there's also Acer (talk · contribs). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I just took a look at the article, and I usually just focus on a section or two at first to play around with edits to get a feel of the writing. I made a few edits to one sentence, and I realized that this article needs a thorough copyediting. There's a lot of duplication. The editor may want to read User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a: redundancy exercises. I'll do more editing, but if I'm doing a lot of copyediting, not my forte, I wouldn't think that this article is ready for FA status. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all, first off may I thank you all for the comments you've provided and the effort some have you have put into editing the article. Secondly, I want to withdraw this nomination if possible after talking to Delldot and coming to the conclusion it's the most reasonable thing to do (since it's very unlikely for this to pass). Thanks again for your hard work. Regards, CycloneNimrodTalk? 20:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]