Template:Did you know nominations/Railway surgery

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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) 06:28, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Railway surgery[edit]

(
)
  • ... that some railway surgeons opposed the introduction of first aid kits on trains maintaining that only doctors should carry out this work? Source: Aldrich (2001), pp. 286-287

Moved to mainspace by Spinningspark (talk). Self-nominated at 21:30, 18 May 2018 (UTC).

  • reviewing, long enough, interesting, well written Whispyhistory (talk) 05:19, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • General eligibility:

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Really a very well written, thorough article. copyvio ok. Pleasure to read. Sampled some references, most I do not have access to, but appear very well thought out. Did you want links to general practitioner (links to modern version) or physician? AGF on most references. Everything is cited. The hook is correct but should it be in the article? Article says "There was some opposition to first aid through fear that it eroded the professional status of doctors and that local contract railway surgeons would lose the fees they would otherwise have accrued for the work". In addition, a hook centred around the attempt to remove an accidentally appointed female railway surgeon might be considered. Whispyhistory (talk) 04:57, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure I entirely understand why you think that the hook is not cited. Do you think that the article does not say that doctors should be rendering first aid rather than other railway workers? I would maintain that that is what the article says through the device of enumerating the reasons that railway surgeons argued this. In any case, the source cited is perfectly clear on this:

Yet if some railway physicians embraced first aid, to many others it was anathema. In the discussion of a paper by Dickson presented to the Association of Railway Surgeons in 1902, W. B. Outten of the Missouri Pacific claimed that “it is very difficult to teach these ignorant men very much about rendering First Aid as it ought to be rendered.” Yet the real complaint of those who opposed first aid training was not that the men were uneducable, but just the reverse: that rather than becoming an extension of the surgeon, as Jonas saw them, they would be a substitute. Thus, Outten went on to claim that “those who have no hospital department in connection with their railroads are naturally friends of first aid.” Another physician, Dr. James H. Ford, worried that “we should not permit them to have the idea enter their heads that they are to displace the local surgeons.” Dr. W. A. McCandless also worried about economics: “I believe much of the work entrusted to railway employees in rendering First Aid should be assigned to physicians. They are poor and they need the money for rendering such service,” he candidly observed.

— Aldrich, 2001
I don't think that general practitioner or physician should be linked. The doctors they had especially in mind were other railway surgeons or local doctors under contract fulfilling the duties of railway surgeon. On Sofie Herzog, I think the first aid issue is more directly relevant to the article and is thus a better hook. Although her case is astonishing to modern sensibilities, I rather think the company would have reacted in exactly the same way on discovering a female train driver had been appointed. The fact that the post was for railway surgeon is almost incidental. But put that article up for GA if you like and get it in DYK that way. As far as I can tell, it's never been to DYK before. SpinningSpark 14:29, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Ok to hook wording. Will let you decide about your GP links. The hook fact in the article still needs an inline citation at the end of the sentence(s) offering that fact. Citations at the end of the paragraph are not sufficient. Whispyhistory (talk) 17:31, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oh good grief, I thought we were supposed to be WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. The cite is a dozen words away and those twelve words are still talking about first aid kits. Maybe I'll do it in a couple of weeks time if I happen to be overcome with the urge to do something utterly pointless. SpinningSpark 17:55, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @Spinningspark: IMO What Whispyhistory asked is a simple and reasonable request in good faith. Please just address it without snarky comments. HaEr48 (talk) 22:14, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @HaEr48: What you are all forgetting is the actual purpose of that rule. It is there so that reviewers do not have to trawl through the refs to find the cite, they can go straight there and verify the fact. There is little doubt what the relevant cite is in this instance, but in any case, I went to the trouble of transcribing a lengthy passage from the ref so the need is now moot (and it's behind a paywall anyway so you can't verify it directly). That took some effort on my part, but I did it with good grace and without any "snarky comments". So sorry if I have now run out of good grace, but I have a long list of articles to write and I'd rather be doing that than servicing useless bureaucracy. You can wait your turn – I'm a volunteer, I'll do it when I feel like it, if ever. SpinningSpark 23:29, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Query: there may be a QPQ issue. Template:Did you know nominations/Workplace robotics safety has already been claimed by Old School WWC Fan for Anarchism in Puerto Rico. It looks like OSWF did the full review. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:17, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
My review was a full review of all DYK requirements and I clearly stated that I thought all requirements had been met. @BlueMoonset: can we have a ruling on whether or not second reviews are valid for QPQ? I will happily do another QPQ review if that is what is required. SpinningSpark 10:54, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Spinningspark, Reidgreg, since the nomination had been pulled back from prep, a new review was clearly in order and should be credited. It is always possible for one nomination to end up having more than one review getting QPQ credit in any number of circumstances; for example, the initial complete review may uncover significant issues with the nomination, and if the reviewer also suggests an alternate hook, they cannot review the nomination further since someone else must check the newly proposed hook (and also that the issues raised earlier have been addressed). BlueMoonset (talk) 03:59, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Railway_surgery&oldid=852766533"