Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hemothorax/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 archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 5 November 2020 [1].

Hemothorax[edit]

Nominator(s): 4thfile4thrank (talk) 16:45, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this article for a featured article because it meets all the requirements. It is stable, has solid prose, is totally free of any puffery, and is comprehensive, covering most is not all of what reliable sources contain. 4thfile4thrank {talk} :? 16:45, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

4thfile4thrank, I think we can probably get this to Featured status eventually, but I suggest that a faster route to the bronze star might be to follow the steps and advice outlined at my essay (targeted at medical articles) at User:SandyGeorgia/Achieving excellence through featured content. Getting a pre-review from other medical editors would have been most helpful (see the work currently underway at Talk:Buruli ulcer as well as the work mentioned in my essay at complete blood count and dementia with Lewy bodies).

Perhaps Axl can let us know if they think we can bring this to FA standard within the course of a FAC, or if withdrawal for more work at article talk would be a faster route. I see numerous citation cleanup needs, as well as MOS issues, but Axl can opine better on the content and comprehensivity. I also see prose issues, and have some sourcing concerns. My suggestion is that working this off-FAC may be a less frustrating experience for all. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:19, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ajpolino, Spicy, Colin, Graham Beards, and Casliber: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:20, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Memdmarti: (our endometriosis expert who should also have a look). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:31, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting because I was pinged. I am sick in bed, and hopped up on cold medication, and not in a good position to do a full review, but I can see several issues just on a cursory look at the article. Are emsworld.com, fpnotebook.com, symptoma.com, rn.com MEDRS sources (let alone high-quality MEDRS sources)? StatPearls articles are used pretty heavily, these have been discussed on WT:MED a few times (search the archives) and the general feeling is that they may be ok for basic information but they are not great sources overall. Several sources are from the 80s, 90s, and early 2000s (see WP:MEDDATE); older sources can be ok for uncontroversial info that has not changed much over the years, but the number of old sources here is concerning. There are some instances where citations are missing at the end of paragraphs.

On comprehensiveness - the epidemiology section only provides statistics for the US; I'm sure hemothorax occurs in other countries as well. Is there anything on history? Who was the first to describe hemothorax, how has treatment and diagnosis changed over the years, etc... There are several places in the article where technical terms should be explained or replaced with simpler alternatives (no lay reader is going to know what "fulminant" means)... some other prose issues. This is a good start, but I agree with Sandy that it will need substantial work to reach FA status, which would best be done outside the FAC process. There are plenty of medical editors with FA experience who would be willing to work with you on this. Spicy (talk) 18:49, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Spicy: I don't see any sources showing the info. In rare diseases like thins, not all the info in the world is available. 4thfile4thrank {talk} :? 18:59, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On the easily fixed technical matters:

The images need considerable cleanup to address MOS:SANDWICH and MOS:CAPTIONS
"Additional images" is not a section per WP:LAYOUT ... those should be provided via a commons cat
There is not a consistent citation style. Per WP:CITEVAR, the article had established the Diberri/Boghog format, but several other styles have been introduced.
Many of the sources are (as Spicy mentioned) not at FA standard ... it is OK to occasionally use StatPearls for very basic info, but it is used a lot here, along with other odd websites.
Books and journal articles don't need accessdates.
The See also section needs attention. FAs should be comprehensive, meaning it is rare for there to be articles mentioned in See also that aren't already worked in to the body of the artile, explaining the relationship.
One-sentence, stubby sections are best avoided.
See WP:CITATION OVERKILL, and potentially surgery in the form of a thoracotomy or video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) to prevent further bleeding.[7][19][12][8][25]
Citations should be placed in ascending order ... by aortic rupture are often fatal.[8][4]
Some attention to Wikilinking is needed.
I will hold off on prose commentary because it makes little sense to work on prose while there are sourcing concerns. This is just a small list of easy things to address. The Boghog/Diberri tool for formatting citations from a PMID is here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:42, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment - This isn't ready. Work needs to be performed on sourcing, formatting, and fleshing it out or organizing stubby sections. Please get feedback outside of FAC (possibly at Peer Review) and you may renominate in a minimum of two weeks. --Laser brain (talk) 19:47, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 19:47, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.