Talk:Gabor B. Racz/GA3

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Montanabw (talk · contribs) 08:18, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	See below for issues
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	See below for comment on Selected works section
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	See below, would like to see citations closer to what they cite, not just piled up at the end of the sentence or paragraph
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig bot flags it a little high. Some phrases clearly not an issue ("acting director of pain services" you gotta call the job what it is), but I see a wee bit of close paraphrasing you might want to work on, nothing serious. Just compare the examples and see if you can rephrase things. The bot flags direct quotes, which you don't need to change, just give it's red flags a look-see
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Could be expanded a bit
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	See comments below
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All are OTRS compliant
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Suggest captioning the images in article body as "Racz" not full name; also remove forced sizes (250px, 200px) as this can cause odd results in some browsers (removing fixed widths causes images to scale to default sizes. If they need to be big for some reason, use the "upright" parameter because then they will scale no matter what preferences a user sets)follow up I tweaked the captions to show what I had in mind, and tossed the fixed sizes. If you can do the same thing better, go ahead. Maybe now move them around a bit, perhaps see how it would look if one were left-aligned.
	7. Overall assessment.

Comments: Overall, this is an interesting biography. See template above for wikignoming suggestions

Expand the lead, should have about two paragraphs summarizing the article for a GA. (Add a bit about his early years, etc.)
- ^{✓ Done 01:39, 29 February 2016 (UTC)}
Ideally, all material in lede should be repeated in body text and can be sourced there...the bit about board certification might have to stay reffed in the lead because it's not mentioned elsewhere, but the stuff on the Racz catheter mostly is...
- ^{✓ Done - actually it is cited in the body but it was previously explained to me that anything having to do with the medical community required MEDRS and/or high quality sources after almost every sentence including in the lead, which I've done. Atsme^📞📧 02:38, 29 February 2016 (UTC)}[reply]
  - See below (MTBW
Overall, I'd like to see the article expanded a bit, I saw the previous version was longer, and I think that there is some of that material that can be restored, though carefully, particularly on what the Racz catheter is and how it is used. The old article's section on the Racz Catheter procedure would need more sourcing, but it was a good start...if the jargon could be linked or reduced and the sourcing confined to MEDRS-compliant articles. That Budapest Times has some interesting material, like how his brother died of diptheria and that he grew up poor because his parents refused to join the Communist Party. His help from the McWhinneys could be restored too.**^{✓ Done - added sourced info per your suggestion, except for the medical procedures which I did not include because it actually belongs in a separate medical article rather than in this BLP which identifies him as the "developer". Atsme^📞📧 02:38, 29 February 2016 (UTC)}[reply]
I'd like to see more wikilinking of complex medical words (or even partial linking if full concept is not written up yet). Examples: catheter, adhesiolysis, epidural lysis, adhesions, radiofrequency thermocoagulation ... etc... no clue what most of that stuff is.
- ^{✓ Done - not all have articles. I red linked a couple so it's on my "to-do" list for future articles. Atsme^📞📧 04:28, 29 February 2016 (UTC)}[reply]
This link isn't loading: [1], I'd also suggest that rather than piling three cites at the end of that long sentence, put them with the bits they support, i.e. [2] verifies "often misunderstood and misdiagnosed" but doesn't mention Racz... keeps citation a bit clearer for future editors to find what came from where. ^{??? Not sure what link or what citation. Perhaps I've already inadvertently fixed it but if not, let me know. 20:49, 29 February 2016 (UTC)}
Maybe explain more about what is unique about the Racz catheter -- or if you did, clarify... and what it does -- when I think "catheter" I think of draining urine -- this is way different ... the refs say it is an epidural catheter used in performing neurolytic blocks --as a reader I am curious about that. ^{Hopefully a medical editor can create the Racz catheter article someday. My experiences in the last GAR and the comments that were made tell us to not define the procedure or how the catheter is used. Apologies, but I cringe when I read the archived info where I was wrongfully accused of a COI but it's bygones now. I've accommodated what I believed to be GF criticisms (none of which warranted a complete GAR), particularly about medical procedures. Perhaps some day the article can be expanded as a potential FAC and at that point inclusion of medical procedures can be discussed among Proj Med editors who know far more about such procedures than the average reader needs to know. 21:17, 29 February 2016 (UTC)}
"Dr. Racz is widely published in many forms" -- kind of puffery, perhaps just say something like "Racz's publications are..." Just keep that neutral, boring, "encyclopedic" tone going (we learn to like it...)^{Well, the problem is that only his books are listed, not any of the numerous journal articles, papers or reviews he has written. FYI - during the GAR, a decision was made to delete the list of his works to include only his books. I can't remember who did it at the time or who stated that he is widely published in many forms but it actually coincides with his "h" and "g" indexing on Google Scholar. 20:49, 29 February 2016 (UTC)}
- I tweaked it directly to show you what I meant. If you can do it better, go for it. How many articles were we talking? All peer-reviewed journals? Montanabw ^(talk)
I'd split "Career and Awards" into two different sections, perhaps putting the awards farther down in the article. You could perhaps restore the bit on the Messer-Racz International Pain Center being named after him. ^{✓ Looks done 20:49, 29 February 2016 (UTC)}
Not sure if useful, but found this review of his book. May be useful for minor expansion. ✓ 20:49, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Selected Works should utilize {{cite book}} ✓ 20:49, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

All for now, may add more. When in doubt, just source up the wazoo. Montanabw ^(talk) 08:55, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up:

I did some different linking to the redlinked stuff just to show where my head was going. I found this article which explains things pretty well. It isn't a MEDRS compliant source, but it helped me understand it better.
You really don't need to have ANY footnotes in the lead if the same material is sourced in the body. You pretty much want to source nearly every sentence in a MEDRS-related article, but if multiple sentences have the same source, you don't have to keep repeating it (if people whine, I insert a hidden text note explaining how much the source covers. But every "fact" must be sourced, that is true. (MTBW)
You DON'T need to double up so many citations. "Racz was born in Hungary" does not require three citations, it needs one. But nice expansion of the early life section, it gives a better sense of what shaped him.
I'm going to make a few gnoming edits for you to show you some of the ways to work with the citations. (I focused on the history bit because I've done a lot of biographies but not a lot of medical stuff...)

All for now. Montanabw ^(talk) 05:54, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- I created epidural lysis of adhesions to better define the procedure and wikilinked to it rather than 3 separate articles. (I'm still working on that article but it shouldn't effect this GAR). I tweaked some of the syntax, and added a couple of new citations that were more recent regarding the medical info. I removed the multiple sources for his place of birth. I'm pretty sure it's ready to go now. Atsme^📞📧 17:19, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question - the way Doc James worded it before was "as an advancement in lysis of adhesions, a procedure used.."; therefore, it could be said that he developed "epidural lysis of adhesions" (no preceding "an") which is the treatment, or go back to "he developed the Racz procedure, an advancement in lysis of adhesions". Which do you like best? Atsme^📞📧 01:20, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are the two terms synonymous? (I can't find any place that uses the phrase other than at the beginning of a sentence, other than here and they aren't native speakers of English. If so, I'm OK if you pitch "an" -- the medical terminology is a bit dense for me to wade though, but I'm trying! Montanabw ^(talk) 04:33, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Found these: "Injection target sites for epidural lysis of adhesion"; "The lysis of adhesions procedure may also be referred to as the Racz ..."; "noted that studies of epidural lysis of adhesions are"; I'll pitch it. Atsme^📞📧 06:46, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm back now. Overall, what I'm looking for is a little more plain English, so while Doc's explanation may have been precise and accurate, and that IS important, it's also a bit jargon-y for a non-medical person such as myself. I like "the Racz procedure, an advancement in lysis of adhesions" -- with all the right words linked... the epidural part is important too, though but that is the method of administration, correct? A phrasing along the lines of "the Racz procedure utilized epidural administration of (whatever), which was an advancement in lysis of adhesions... " or whatever you can justify and source. Basically, accurate, but in plain enough English that you don't have to be a M.D. to read it. ;-) Montanabw ^(talk) 06:04, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy hey, Montanabw! Glad you're back. Per your suggestions, I made the necessary tweaks to the lead - described the procedure so even I can understand it while still keeping it "encyclopedic". Added a good PubMed ref. Also, notice the wikilink to the procedure epidural lysis of adhesions if you haven't already. Atsme^📞📧 23:45, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PS - I'm now working on the body, making some improvements here and there to better corroborate the lead. Atsme^📞📧 01:36, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Hit me again, Sam!! *lol* Atsme^📞📧 02:37, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your changes have been very helpful; the article is both thoroughly sourced but also understandable in plain English to the non-medical reader. It clearly meets the GA standard and I am now passing it. Congratulations! Montanabw ^(talk) 21:49, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thoroughness and the time you invested in this review. It is much appreciated. Atsme^📞📧 03:29, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]