Template:Did you know nominations/Vaginal evisceration

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 Victuallers (talk) 14:53, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Vaginal evisceration

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that a rare complication of a vaginal hysterectomy is vaginal evisceration?

• Reviewed: Reviewed Double tee

Created by Keilana (talk) and GorillaWarfare (talk). Nominated by GorillaWarfare (talk) at 04:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC).

• How about we skip the photo? EEng (talk) 22:17, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

• Agree We aren't censored but I think we shoud keep that off the main page... EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 02:24, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Heh, that's fine, I forget that not everyone is used to seeing gory surgery images all the time... Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 16:15, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Works for me. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:18, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Removed. EEng (talk) 23:35, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

• Nice article – date, length, references, QPQ and close paraphrasing check are all fine. The only issue is that the hook fact should be stated explicitly in the article. I recommend stating simply that evisceration is a complication of vaginal hysterectomy immediately before introducing the 63% statistic. In the epidemiology section, you also need to place a reference immediately after the sentence that claims that the complication is rare. It would also be ideal to add links to the article from other articles, so that it isn't orphaned, but that's not a necessity for DYK. 97198 (talk) 12:58, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Not sure "nice" is the word I'd choose. EEng (talk) 17:34, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

• Also, how do you feel about rewording the hook to make the bolded article the subject and use less jargon:

• ALT1: ... that vaginal evisceration is a rare complication of removing the uterus through the vagina? 97198 (talk) 13:00, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

@97198: I like ALT1, and I think the hook is stated explicitly: "typically subsequent to vaginal hysterectomy, and especially as a consequence of sexual intercourse after the surgery". Should I make it more explicit? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 15:43, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I also prefer ALT1; vaginal hysterectomy is the actual term for the procedure, and the article section to which it links explains the concept well if a reader is unfamiliar. I also agree with Keilana that the citations seem sufficient—the Matthews and Kenton reference supports "Though it is a rare complication, as the popularity of laparoscopic hysterectomy has risen, the rate of vaginal evisceration has also risen. Vaginal cuff dehiscence occurs in 0.24–0.39% of cases; of these, vaginal evisceration occurs in 35%–67%.", and it seems redundant to duplicate the reference in two consecutive sentences. The Cronin cite supports the 0.032–1.2% statistic directly. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:34, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

• I might defer to someone else on the matter of whether the hook fact needs to be more explicit in the article, since I'm not sure (sorry). For medical-minded readers the meaning is fairly obvious, but I'm concerned that the wording in the article requires some reading between the lines for lay readers. 97198 (talk) 07:10, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

• I think the citation situation is fine; you can easily see that the hook is supported by the citations in the article. And as a lay reader "removing the uterus through the vagina" is more obscure than "vaginal hysterectomy". That said, I do have the equipment under discussion, so maybe it is clearer as ALT1 to a layman. Belle (talk) 15:22, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

• ALT2: ... that vaginal evisceration is a rare complication of surgically removing the uterus entirely through the vaginal canal? - Dravecky (talk) 11:25, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I've rechecked date, length, references, QPQ and close paraphrasing, and everything is fine. In regards to the hook, I feel the article very clearly supports the original hook. I'm sure enough people know what a hysterectomy is, and if not, the article uses links and explanations sufficiently. – Maky ^« talk » 22:14, 25 June 2015 (UTC)