- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:28, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Berta Bobath edit
- ... that Berta Bobath created the "most popular approach for treating neurologically-impaired patients in the western world"?
- ALT1:...
that Berta Bobath and her husband, who won an award for working with disabled people, took an overdose together? - Reviewed: Sakaye Shigekawa
- ALT1:...
Created by Victuallers (talk). Self-nominated at 10:58, 7 September 2015 (UTC).
It is said that "it is the most popular approach for treating neurologically impaired patients in the western world." Said by whom? Quotations must have an inline reference right after they end, not at the end of the paragraph. Cambalachero (talk) 17:48, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
- thx @Cambalachero:. Oops - Ive added an extra ref to the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy. Victuallers (talk) 07:58, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Unsupported attributions. The legacy section is filled with those: "it is said that", "there is a view that", "Critics believe that", "others believe that". You have to be more precise, and clarify who says each thing. Cambalachero (talk) 18:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- thx @Cambalachero:. Oops - Ive added an extra ref to the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy. Victuallers (talk) 07:58, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
- I went to check, I think you (or I) are misunderstanding the policy. In the citation that you make you only give a link to the policy "Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Unsupported attributions" ... that's what I have done here. Like you I have supplied a link to the people who said it in the article. You do not say "Wikipedia policy writers have said ".
- That is what the policy writers mean when they say that you should not say that something is particularly significant or certain without attributing that opinion. Attributions means a citation. All the words of opinion are attributed I believe. These are not my opinion, I am not inventing nameless non existent experts. I don't have a POV on this to push. The CSP are the experts or they are the experts they mention. The CSP mention other "critics". Its good that you have spotted some "words to watch", but they are only "words to watch". If there is a specific example then lets discuss it and if I've made a mistake then I will with pleasure correct it. However you are allowed to use all of these "words to watch" if they are referenced to reliable third party sources. Do tell me if I have missed something. If a reliable source like the BBC say "experts have said x and y" then the article can say "experts say x and y" as long it its referenced to the BBC. Victuallers (talk) 18:47, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Full review needed, including whether the above is an issue that needs fixing in the article. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:28, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
- The sentence in question (It is said that "it is the most popular approach for treating neurologically impaired patients in the western world.") still has no inline citation in the lead (though it's cited in the body) and still does not specify whom it is said by. Victuallers, are you still working on this article? I'm willing to do the full review if the problems with the above quotation are addressed.
- While I'm at it, though: the phrase "neurologically impaired" in the main hook should be hyphenated, and the phrase "the disabled" in ALT1 should be replaced with "disabled people". —GrammarFascist contribstalk 23:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
- - good points. Do feel free to fix errors. - now fixed. Note. I replied on 15th September and no action in the last month. Victuallers (talk) 07:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- I have added an extra ref to the lede to address your point, however it is not usual to provide citations in the lede but thee is no reason why we shouldn't break that advice. Thanks for your attention and advice @GrammarFascist:. Victuallers (talk) 07:39, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- ALT2:... that Berta Bobath and her husband, who won together an award for working with people with disabilities, took an overdose together?
- Alt2 is an improvement as it uses People-first language. Victuallers (talk) 07:41, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- (indenting corrected above) Hello Victuallers, I agree with you that ALT2 is superior to my suggested change to ALT1. I've struck ALT1 as we seem to be in agreement that that language is not optimal. (For discussion of why DYK facts need to be cited in the lead if they appear in the lead, see here; if it's any consolation, that rule came as a surprise to me too.)
- Article was created and nominated the same day and is more than long enough. It follows NPOV and has inline citations.
- The sentence "She developed techniques that assisted patients to gain or regain facilities" needs a citation as it asserts a fairly extraordinary fact.
- The phrase "the Bobath name is well known" should also be cited or altered.
- (The article as a whole needs some copy editing, but that's easily taken care of, or might even be done by someone who finds the article via the front page.)
- No close paraphrasing or copyvio. (Use of people-first language outside direct quotations is particularly appreciated by this PWD.)
- Original hook is short enough, interesting, and cited, but I'm not convinced the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy alone, being a UK organization, can speak for the whole of "the western world". It might be best to go with an ALT.
- ALT2 is also interesting, short enough and cited. For clarity, it should probably read "who together won" as otherwise a reader might think only the award was given only to Karel.
- QPQ is done; no image.
- Once the few adjustments noted are made, I believe this DYK will be GTG. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 14:41, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- (indenting corrected above) Hello Victuallers, I agree with you that ALT2 is superior to my suggested change to ALT1. I've struck ALT1 as we seem to be in agreement that that language is not optimal. (For discussion of why DYK facts need to be cited in the lead if they appear in the lead, see here; if it's any consolation, that rule came as a surprise to me too.)
- I'm concerned that some of these points are well outside DYK review requirements, but I have made the changes requested in good faith. I do think its an odd view to say that the principal scientific body in the UK is not qualified to comment on what is the most popular technique in the Western world. Anyway thanks for your work Victuallers (talk) 15:13, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- Victuallers, just as a reminder, the guidelines for DYK review include evaluating the article nominated to ensure that it "meets core policies and guidelines, and in particular: ... [that it] cites sources with inline citations". And as a USian who had not previously heard of the UK body, it seemed reasonable to me to question whether an industry group in one small country could speak authoritatively about practices in North America and the rest of Europe. My spouse had a series of strokes and underwent very successful physical rehabilitation, yet we had never heard of Bobath or her therapy concept.
In any event, I'm now satisfied with the article's citations, and will AGF for the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy being an authoritative enough body to identify the Bobath concept as "the most popular approach for treating neurologically-impaired patients in the western world", though I still think ALT2 is the stronger hook. Thank you for creating and nominating an interesting article. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 18:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
