Revision as of 04:07, 8 September 2015 editLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,291,834 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Gabor B. Racz/Archive 1) (bot← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 10:18, 10 February 2024 edit undoQwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs)Bots, Mass message senders4,012,009 edits Implementing WP:PIQA (Task 26)Tag: Talk banner shell conversion | ||
(17 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{GA nominee|17:16, 3 August 2015 (UTC)|nominator=<font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><sup>]]</sup>|page=2|subtopic=Biology and medicine|status=|note=}} | |||
{{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
|archiveheader = {{aan}} | |archiveheader = {{aan}} | ||
Line 9: | Line 7: | ||
|algo = old(60d) | |algo = old(60d) | ||
|archive = Talk:Gabor B. Racz/Archive %(counter)d | |archive = Talk:Gabor B. Racz/Archive %(counter)d | ||
}} | |||
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|blp=yes|1= | |||
{{WikiProject Biography |living=yes |listas=Racz, Gabor |class=C |s&a-work-group=yes |s&a-priority=Low}} | |||
{{WikiProject Medicine |class=C |importance=Low |society=y |society-imp=Mid}} | |||
{{WikiProject United States |class=C |importance=Low |TX=yes |TX-importance=Mid}} | |||
{{WikiProject Hungary |class=C |importance=Low}} | |||
}} | }} | ||
{{Article history | {{Article history | ||
Line 29: | Line 21: | ||
| action2oldid = | | action2oldid = | ||
| |
| action3 = GAN | ||
| action3date = 12 March 2016 | |||
| action3link = Talk:Gabor B. Racz/GA3 | |||
| action3result = listed | |||
| action3oldid = 709366541 | |||
| currentstatus = GA | |||
| itndate = | | itndate = | ||
| dykdate = 25 April 2014 | | dykdate = 25 April 2014 | ||
Line 37: | Line 35: | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{Talk header}} | {{Talk header}} | ||
{{WikiProject banner shell|blp=yes|class=GA|listas=Racz, Gabor| | |||
{{WikiProject Biography |s&a-work-group=yes |s&a-priority=Low}} | |||
{{WikiProject Medicine |importance=Low |society=y |society-imp=Mid}} | |||
{{WikiProject United States |importance=Low |TX=yes |TX-importance=Mid}} | |||
{{WikiProject Hungary |importance=Low}} | |||
}} | |||
{{Talk:Gabor B. Racz/GA2}} | |||
==Still spammy== | |||
This article still reads like spam. I have warned ] for removing this tag again. They have not fixed the problems. ] (] · ] · ]) 17:34, 9 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
::You can't just generalize with such a comment, Doc James. I disagree that it is "spammy" since the sources do support the passages. Is this a doctor to doctor issue when you say "spammy"? State the passages you consider spammy, because without doing so is disruptive. What I'm trying to do is prevent this article from being chopped up beyond recognition after a confirmed experienced reviewer supported its assessment twice. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><sup>]]</sup> 17:40, 9 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::It is still full of peacock terminology. The concerns have not been fixed. The sources used to support the spammy text like spineuniverse are sort of spammy themselves. ] (] · ] · ]) 17:46, 9 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::General statement and POV. The sky is blue doesn't have to be sourced. The fact the man is an internationally renowned expert on the subject is what makes him notable. How is that spammy? <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><sup>]]</sup> 17:51, 9 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
See ] because your allegations of spammy are unwarranted. It is not "peacock" when it is sourced. Also see ] which clearly states for example: | |||
{{xt|Just the facts: | |||
Dylan was included in Time's 100: The Most Important People of the Century, where he was called "master poet, caustic social critic and intrepid, guiding spirit of the counterculture generation". By the mid-1970s, his songs had been covered by hundreds of other artists.}} | |||
So here are the facts, Doc James: | |||
Gabor B. Racz is a notable expert for many reasons including his work and treatment of CRPS, and he has been recognized globally for it. He works with and is a founder of the World Institute of Pain which common sense tells us he is recognized around the world. He also travels, teaches, and gives lectures. That isn't "peacock", that is factual information. There aren't a lot of scientific journals that recognize such accomplishments of individual researchers, so if you're expecting MEDRS compliant sources, you're asking the impossible. All that is required in the case of a BLP are reliable sources and that includes self published. See ] because you are actually the one being disruptive here. Were it not that this article is a prior reviewed GA that was again recently confirmed by the original reviewer, your challenges may have been substantive. But as it stands now, and according to PAGs, they are nothing more than your POV as is the tag you keep adding without merit. Since you are a doctor critiquing the BLP of another doctor that has already passed GA and was reconfirmed by the original reviewer, I can't help but question the possibility of an unintended bias (with absolutely no disrespect intended toward you) but I have to ask you to reconsider your involvement here. It's one thing when you're editing articles about treatments and drugs etc. but this is a BLP. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><sup>]]</sup> 18:25, 9 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
::Yes this sums it up nicely ]. You have "pioneered what became known as" ] (] · ] · ]) 19:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
Here ] removed some puffery which User Atsme returned ] (] · ] · ]) 22:55, 9 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::{{U|Atsme}}: | |||
::::(1) I see you said above "a founder of the World Institute of Pain which common sense tells us he is recognized around the world. " Do you really think that anything called "World Institute of..." is necessarily recognized around the world by common sense? I've listed this particular one for deletion at ]. I see you've worked on it also. | |||
::::(2)In the sentence: "The University Medical Center named him to a $1 million endowed chair in recognition of his 'greatness in patient care, teaching and research' what information exactly is added by the "in recognition of his 'greatness in patient care, teaching and research'" ? This is pure puffery. | |||
::::(3)The repeated use of "some" patients makes the statements meaningless; it might mean 1 in a 1000, or it might be a vague claim based on nothing specific, Even as a quotation, it may represent what was said, but it's meaningless. Picking quotations if done to support a POV can very easily be puffery. | |||
::::(4)If we can a category for "BA",a Bad Article so promotional as to make the actually notable subject appear as someone in need of unrealistic publicity, I'd nominate this one. It's not just puffery, it's pointless puffery. | |||
::::(5)and, of course, I strongly encourage DocJames to frequently contribute his expertise on evaluating BLPS of people in medicine. Far too many of them need attention. ''']''' (]) 04:51, 10 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
{{od}} | |||
Oh well, I too tried dealing with some of the problems in the early life section (including the incorrect information that Racz was married when he fled Hungary), but was reverted. Smells of ]ership. ] (]) 06:19, 11 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
:So far, the change I made to specify that he and Enid were unmarried when they fled has not yet been reverted. However, I tried to modify the text to remove the sensational wording and that was reverted as "Not an improvement". The scent of ]ership is heavy in the air. ] (]) 15:43, 11 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
::And the clunky repetition of "fled" has come back - which is also not right since when moving from Austria to the UK, Racz was no longer "fleeing". ] (]) 16:09, 11 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::He fled from Hungary to the UK. It wasn't a casual move. All you're doing now with the snarky criticisms is confirming a behavioral pattern of incivility. I see an IP has joined in with an edit summary reflective of another's editor's style. Hmmm. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><sup>]]</sup> 16:30, 11 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::If you believe someone is socking, then file an ]. ] (]) 17:40, 11 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::Your change was not an improvement, and it has nothing to do with ownership. I did not revert your change to "then-girlfriend" but not without reservations because Enid is his wife. Whether they were married at the time is irrelevant. The infobox shows Enid as his spouse so I'm thinking perhaps the connection will be made. Other editors can weigh-in on that point. I have no problem with collaborators who want to improve this article, but my past experiences with you as a collaborator have demonstrated a pattern of POV pushing like you did at ], even though consensus was against you. In retaliation you nominated the essay for a 3rd MfD, after you participated in the two priors and pretended to collaborate in GF, so please stop trying to make me look the bad guy. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><sup>]]</sup> 16:10, 11 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::::To say that she was his wife at the time they left Hungary is to misstate the sources because the source clearly states that they weren't married at that time. I've changed it to {{u|Alexbrn}}'s wording - future wife - because that's clearer. Every edit I have made on Misplaced Pages is in good faith and has been made to try to improve the encyclopaedia. Please strike your personal attacks against me and in the future please restrict your comments to content only. ] (]) 17:30, 11 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::::The only derogatory comments made here were PAs against me. You're the one who needs to do the striking. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><sup>]]</sup> 17:51, 11 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
==GAR== | |||
{{Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/Gabor B. Racz/1}} | |||
== Racz procedure == | |||
Just wanted to say that from a layperson's perspective, the rewrite of that section is clearly an improvement. Good job!! <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><sup>]]</sup> 20:53, 13 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
:Thanks! Thanks also for tweaking the wording a bit. Apologies for taking so long to get those changes done; I had to learn about the procedure and everything before I could write about it and that takes time. I think there's still more to say about the catheter and its development, use, and reception (including the company he founded to manufacture it). I've seen some reports on problems with the catheter (apparently the tip can sometimes break off) but I think that information would belong in an article on the catheter itself, if one exists. ] (]) 15:16, 14 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
::You are quite welcome. <s>I can't think of anything more satisfying than GF collaboration.</s> GF collaboration can be quite satisfying. ] It's all about the syntax. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><sup>]]</sup> 15:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
== New GA nomination == | |||
I see that this article has been re-nominated as a GA. I don't think it's ready for GA as it's still missing info about the regional pain procedures he's involved with as well as info about his company, which means the article incomplete. The prose, sourcing, and structure also need work. I am working on all of this but it's going to take time to improve this article. Thanks. ] (]) 19:51, 3 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
:Doc James already said it was ready. The article laid idle until I nominated it for GA today, and now you suddenly show up to destabilize it? Please stand down. Pain procedures belong in a separate medical article about such procedures. We don't need such detail in a biography. As for company information, we've mentioned it enough for this biography. If you want to create a spin-off article about the company go ahead. Furthermore, the additional information needs to be RS, and it can always be added later to expand the article for potential FA promotion. One step at a time - let the GA process proceed without further disruption, and stop eliminating biographical content. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><sup>]]</sup> 21:41, 3 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
::{{u|Doc James}} that {{xt|it is way better than it was}}, which is not at all the same thing as saying it's ready for GA review. If you want to remove the pain procedures, go ahead; I expanded them because they were already there. There's still nothing in the article about the company he started, and there probably should be, because that's part of his history. | |||
::The article still needs a lot of work because I'm still finding problems with it. For example, references didn't support that Ian McWhinney helped him - one said that he received unnamed help and the other was an acknowledgement for unspecified help in a book. Putting them together to state that McWhinney helped Racz is OR. Also, the name of the co-director in the article, Mark Boswell, was not supported by references. | |||
::But whatever. I'm going to continue to work on the article to improve it (I hadn't noticed that you'd re-nominated it until I was a few edits in) and we'll let the GA review process go ahead even though I think it's way premature. ] (]) 22:33, 3 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
::Adding: I'm wrong about him starting a company, and I apologize for that confusion. According to the , the company was started by Gabor ''J.'' Racz, and this is Gabor ''B.'' Racz. This is great news because it means the article isn't lacking in this way. ] (]) 00:57, 4 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::I prefer to not remove anything that is informational and actually hope we can find more to expand the article. As you may already be aware, it's difficult to find MEDRS quality for biographical content, especially for academics, so we use the best we can find including self-published, local newspapers, CVs, etc. The article needs to be rebuilt to where it was before so much of his biographical material was removed. The prose needs to be engaging, not flat as what some have suggested. Flat works with medical articles, not biographies. Fortunately, GAs don't have a minimum prose requirement but if we ever hope to get it promoted to FA, it needs more content. FA reviewers don't like outlines. They want to know the what, why, where, and how. Example, he fled Hungary. Really? Why? With whom did he leave? How did escape? Where did he go? How did he get there? What did he do when he got there? I'm not saying to include trivial info but we do need more biographical content. Once we have it all together, we can start paring it down by tightening the prose. See . <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><sup>]]</sup> 01:49, 4 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::I see your point. I do think we have to be careful not to turn the article into something dramatic. I think you're very talented at writing stuff for TV to convey a message but here we're trying to be neutral in relating what happened. So we don't want to use the kind of language that TV does - we want to describe what happened without the dramatic context. | |||
::::With respect to the positions be held at SUNY, my principle objection is with the phrasing "duties included" because that reads like a resume or cv. I admit that I jumped the gun in removing that sentence as it can be reworked, and I apologise for that. Going forward, I'll try to rework something before outright removal. Please know that when I've removed text that isn't supported by its refs I have looked for a new ref. | |||
::::I agree that there aren't alot of great sources for articles like this so we'll work with what we have. ] (]) 03:57, 4 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::Your response is so uplifting, I'm at a loss for words. Thank you!! It represents everything I'm accustomed to in GF collaboration. You made my day, Ca2james! <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><sup>]]</sup> 23:42, 4 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
:The two paragraphs on medical procedures are inappropriate. WP is not a surgical textbook. Nor are the references for them acceptable.MedRS applies to medical content: Refs 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 20, 21, and 22 should not be used here for any purpose. Ref 16, is OK; it illustrates some of the exceptions: it documents the original report on new technique that is shown by secondary sources to be notable. | |||
:Additionally,all the book references need some context, as usual with printed book. It is necessary to show that they are more than mere mentions. Thisis especially the case when the ref is to a single page or a pair of adjacent pages. | |||
:I am not sure there is sufficient usable material here to ever be GA; in any case I am quite sure that at present there is not. "there aren't alot of great sources for articles like this so we'll work with what we have." is unacceptable for medical topics, and unacceptable for GA. GAs have good sources. ''']''' (]) 23:06, 4 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
::Thanks for your help, {{u|DGG}}. I'm not so familiar with MEDRS and I didn't realize that those sources were inappropriate so I appreciate your input. When I said that there aren't a lot of great sources I was referring to his life and career, not the medical techniques. Not that poor sourcing for his life is much better! There just isn't much of anything out there on this doctor. Aside from the bios written in journals and the books he's published (and I don't know whether those are considered RS) there are a few articles in the Texas Tech paper and the local Lubbock paper but that's it. He did develop the Racz catheter and the Racz procedure but those facts don't seem to be written up anywhere. He's also one of the founders of WIP, but again that's not written up in independent sources. I'm at a loss as to what to do with this article; based on your comments I think most of it should be gutted. Is that right? I'd appreciate any advice or help you can give. Thanks. ] (]) 23:39, 4 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
==Publications and recognition== | |||
:::Sorry, but I disagree with DGG. See the following for my reasons: | |||
Click on the "PUBLICATIONS" section and there is a lot of fertile ground. {{cite web |url=http://www.spineuniverse.com/author/1430/racz |title=Gabor B. Racz Publications |publisher=SpineUniverse |accessdate=January 29, 2016}} <span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">] (])</span> 16:55, 29 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
:::*] | |||
:::*] | |||
:::*] | |||
:::*] | |||
:::Gabor B. Racz is a world-renowned physician and academic. It would be an absolute shame to slight any medical practitioner who has accomplished the milestones in pain medicine that he has accomplished. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">]</font><sup>]]</sup> 23:59, 4 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
{{Talk:Gabor B. Racz/GA3}} | |||
::::One of the differences between those GAs and this article is that there are quite a few independent sources describing those people's notability. In this case, most of the sources describing Racz' accomplishments don't appear to be independent but are instead bios in journals and books. He might well be the greatest physician since sliced bread but we need independent sources telling us that.. and although I've looked for them I haven't seen them. ] (]) 00:18, 5 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
== External links modified == | |||
::::As usual, I consider using really notable people to prove the notability of less important ones in the same profession an absurd line of argument. I'm going to give some advice--trying to bring this to GA was an error of judgment, for it merely called attention to its inadequacies. ''']''' (]) 00:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
Hello fellow Wikipedians, | |||
::I've removed the excess surgical descriptions and the refs listed above as unsuitable. Because the reference numbering has now changed, I've copied the old refs here so that we know which ref is paired with which original number. ] (]) 15:36, 5 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
I have just modified 3 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes: | |||
{{cot|title=List of references removed with the reference numbers used }} | |||
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://budapesttimes.hu/2016/01/29/from-flight-to-fame/ | |||
* ref 9: {{cite journal |title=Evolution of Epidural Lysis of Adhesions |url=http://www.painphysicianjournal.com/2000/july/2000;3;262-270.pdf |journal=Pain Physician Journal |date=July 2000 |volume=3 |issue=3 |last1=Anderson |first1=Susan R. |last2=Racz |first2=Gabor B. |last3=Heavner |first3=James |pages=262-270 |pmid=16906184}} | |||
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.texaspain.org/assets/Board/racz.pdf | |||
* ref 11: {{cite book |url=https://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&lr=&id=gnZpAgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA179#v=onepage&q&f=false |title=Interventional Pain Medicine |editor-last=Gupta |editor-first=Anita |chapter=Chapter 4.2 Caudal Adhesiolysis |last1=Lenchig |first1=Sergio |last2=Lindley |first2=David |pages=629-639 |publisher=Oxford University Press |date=2012 |isbn=9780199740604}} | |||
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140413124615/http://eurekamag.com/research/030/404/capnography-operating-room-introductory-directory.php to http://eurekamag.com/research/030/404/capnography-operating-room-introductory-directory.php | |||
* ref 13: {{cite journal |title=Epidural Lysis of Adhesions |journal=Korean Journal of Pain |last1=Lee |first1=Frank |last2=Jamison |first2=David E. |last3=Hurley |first3=Robert W. |last4=Cohen |first4=Stephen P.|date=January 2014 |volume=27 |issue=1 |pages=3-15 |url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3903797/ |doi=10.3344/kjp.2014.27.1.3 |pmid=24478895}} | |||
* ref 15: {{cite journal |title=Interventional Pain Management: Evolving Issues For 2003 |url=http://www.painphysicianjournal.com/2003/january/2003;6;125-137.pdf |journal=Pain Physician Journal |last1=Manchikanti |first1=Laxmaiah |last2=Singh |first2=Vijay |volume=6 |issue=1 |date=January 2003 |pages=125-137 |issn=1533-3159 |pmid=16878168}} | |||
* ref 17: {{cite web | url=http://www.spineuniverse.com/author/1430/racz | title=Gabor B. Racz, MD | publisher=Spine Universe | accessdate=July 9, 2015}} | |||
* ref 20: {{cite journal | url=http://medind.nic.in/iad/t10/i6/iadt10i6p546.pdf | title=Efficacy of Stellate Ganglion Block with an Adjuvant Ketamine for Peripheral Vascular Disease of the Upper Limbs | author=Kalpana R. Kulkarni, Anita I. Kadam, Ismile J. Namazi | journal=Indian Journal of Anesthesia |date=November 2010 | volume=54 | issue=6 | pages=546-551 | doi=10.4103/0019-5049.72645 | pmid=21224973}} | |||
* ref 21: {{cite journal | url=http://www.hindawi.com/journals/jan/2014/792569/ | title=Ultrasound Guided Stellate Ganglion Block in Postmastectomy Pain Syndrome: A Comparison of Ketamine versus Morphine as Adjuvant to Bupivacaine | author=Ola T. Abdel Dayem, Mostafa M. Saeid, Olfat M. Ismail, Adel M. El Badrawy, and Nevert A. Abdel Ghaffar | journal=Journal of Anesthesiology | year=2014 | volume=2014 | pages=6 | doi=10.1155/2014/792569}} | |||
* ref 22: {{cite web|publisher=Lubbock Avalanche-Journal|url=http://lubbockonline.com/stories/111005/lif_111005026.shtml|title=Procedure uses phenol, Botox to help restore normalcy to patients - Putting a stop to pain|author=John Davis|date=November 10, 2005|accessdate=April 5, 2014}} | |||
{{cob}} | |||
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. | |||
== McWhinney helping Racz == | |||
{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}} | |||
The references provided do not support the fact that Ian and Betty McWhinney helped Racz. The Acknowledgements page says {{xt|I wish to dedicate this book to Ian McWhinney, M. D. and his wife Betty ... all of who helped and made my professional life possible at those times when help was most needed.}} There's no indication there that this help was to get him into medical school. Therefore, we cannot conclude that McWhinney and his wife did help hget into medical school. The other ref says that an unnamed someone helped him get into medical school. To conclude that it was McWhinney based on those two sources is OR. | |||
Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 10:35, 12 May 2017 (UTC) | |||
Since the refs don't support this fact, I've removed that text again. If there is a source that specifically says McWhinney helped him get into medical school then the text could be re-added with that source. I couldn't find one, though. ] (]) 03:34, 4 August 2015 (UTC) | |||
:Yes, it was OR and you fixed it; so have gone back to your text. ] (]) 03:52, 4 August 2015 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 10:18, 10 February 2024
Gabor B. Racz has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gabor B. Racz article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 2 months |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA Review
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Gabor B. Racz/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Bluerasberry (talk · contribs) 15:01, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
The lead says, he "developed what became known as the Racz procedure for epidural lysis of adhesions". This statement does not appear in the body of the article, and I would expect this. Please provide a source which backs the idea that the Racz procedure is a procedure for epidural lysis of adhesions. Looking more at the lead, there are no sources which say he is recognized as chairman emeritus and the body of the article says he was a director of pain services, not co-director. Could sources be identified for every statement in the lead? I know Misplaced Pages has mixed instructions about citations in the lead but for good articles, I think it is worthwhile to have every fact presented backed with a citation, especially if the fact does not appear with a citation in the body of the article.
I am looking at the "Racz catheter and procedure" and procedure section. It says this -
In 1989, he developed the "Racz procedure" — a treatment for patients with chronic low back pain caused by scar tissue due to previous surgeries, protruding or herniated disks, fractures, or degeneration that has not responded to other treatments. This procedure was assigned a Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code in 2000.
Can you please confirm which of these sources actually uses the term "Racz procedure"? One is self-authored, so I presume that one does not use this term. I did a keyword search of 14, and did not see the word "Racz". I cannot access sources 12 or 13, so I do not know what they say. I think it would be worthwhile to describe the procedure here, especially since it is mentioned in the lead.
The images being used in the article need categorization. Probably they could be called "Gabor B. Racz" and put in some category like Anesthesiologists in the United States.
The text says, "Racz was the first recipient of the Grover E. Murray Professorship, TTHUSC's highest award, in 1996". I checked the source, and it contains no editorializing. The "TTHUSC's highest award" should be cut or backed with a source since it seems to be WP:OR.
I think this is a start. Thanks for all the work on this biography. It is an orderly article and well presented. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:01, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- Bluerasberry all the information you mentioned was included in the article prior to the "reassessment". It was removed despite protests. This is the pre-stripped version. There were only a few copyedits that needed to be performed, and some updates to higher quality sources. It could have easily been fixed instead of putting the article through a full reassessment, and stripping it of nearly half the information. Atsme 01:17, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- PS - hopefully, the author of the InTech bio will update their information so we can cite that source regarding his birthplace. I sent an email requesting verification, and suggested updating the InTech bio. The other option is to remove Budapest and simply say he was born in Hungary. I get the sense that Racz never even gave such information a second thought prior to my creating his BLP on WP. He appears to be a very busy man and has spent a lifetime tending to far more important things. 😊 Atsme 01:25, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- If no source is identified talking about place of birth then that can be removed. Misplaced Pages is supposed to cover what sources say, not seek information which has not been published. I am not sure how to reconcile what information has been removed. Even more can be removed, I think. If information is not backed by reliable sources then I would favor its removal. Ping me if I should look at something. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:04, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
- I removed Budapest because I could not find a source online. It may be in a bio in one of his books but until I find a source we can cite, I'll just leave it out.
- Re: removing more information from this BLP - I was thinking more on the lines of adding more to it. See the following article: . The Racz BLP is about a notable academic (over 2800 citations, H-index 29.00, G-index >50) and world renowned doctor who is now in his late 70s. His life's work is also notable with great EV. It isn't often that newspapers write articles about mainstream doctors - they usually have to be exceptional doctors which explains the article on Racz. I think this BLP could be expanded to meet the criteria required of FA candidates, don't you? His notability was easily established per Misplaced Pages:Notability_(academics) wherein it states (my underline): {{xt|An article's assertion that the subject passes this guideline is not sufficient. Every topic on Misplaced Pages must have sources that comply with Misplaced Pages:Verifiability. For instance, major awards listed must be confirmed, claims of impact in the field need to be substantiated by independent statements, reviews, citation metrics, library holdings, etc. (see below for specific notes), and so on. However, once the facts establishing the passage of one or more of the notability criteria above have been verified through independent sources, non-independent sources, such as official institutional and professional sources, are widely accepted as reliable sourcing for routine, uncontroversial details.
- Re: the Racz procedure you mentioned above actually does appear in the body of the article under the section Racz catheter and procedure" but they failed to include the medical terminology "adhesiolysis or epidural lysis of adhesions". I have corrected it so you can mark that one off your list. The editors who descended on this article made quite a few unnecessary changes and disrupted the flow of the prose like what you pointed out about the body not mentioning what's in the lede. I thought I fixed all the bumbling but a few slipped through the cracks, so thank you for catching them. You're a good reviewer. The term Racz procedure is synonymous with adhesiolysis or epidural lysis of adhesions, and both are ubiquitous in medical circles, and particularly in pain clinics. I added another source, "Percutaneous adhesiolysis is also called the Racz procedure, after Gabor Racz, M.D., who developed it." and both sources you named above also mention it.
- Re: add citations in the lede. Done.
- Re: TTUHSC highest award, I cited the Budapest Times again.
- Think that covers it. Atsme 04:34, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
- If no source is identified talking about place of birth then that can be removed. Misplaced Pages is supposed to cover what sources say, not seek information which has not been published. I am not sure how to reconcile what information has been removed. Even more can be removed, I think. If information is not backed by reliable sources then I would favor its removal. Ping me if I should look at something. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:04, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
- PS - hopefully, the author of the InTech bio will update their information so we can cite that source regarding his birthplace. I sent an email requesting verification, and suggested updating the InTech bio. The other option is to remove Budapest and simply say he was born in Hungary. I get the sense that Racz never even gave such information a second thought prior to my creating his BLP on WP. He appears to be a very busy man and has spent a lifetime tending to far more important things. 😊 Atsme 01:25, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Bluerasberry, I addressed your concerns, made some final tweaks, added more sources and now it's ready for your seal of approval. Atsme 02:50, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Primary sources through OTRS
See Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_123#RfC_-_should_we_allow_primary_sources_sent_in_to_OTRS. There was some discussion about whether information about place of birth could be reported throught OTRS then put into the article. This discussion is not a rule, but it is recent thought on the matter. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:29, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- Understood, and thank you Bluerasberry for pointing that out. I removed Budapest from the article two days ago, and I've made some tweaks and added citations to accommodate your concerns above, so it's ready for you to complete the review. Atsme 21:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Publications and recognition
Click on the "PUBLICATIONS" section and there is a lot of fertile ground. "Gabor B. Racz Publications". SpineUniverse. Retrieved January 29, 2016. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:55, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
GA Review
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Gabor B. Racz/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Montanabw (talk · contribs) 08:18, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
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. | ||
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.)
- 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...
-
- 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.**
- 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.
- This link isn't loading: , 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. verifies "often misunderstood and misdiagnosed" but doesn't mention Racz... keeps citation a bit clearer for future editors to find what came from where.
- 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.
- "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...)
- 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
- 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.
- 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 08:55, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
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 05:54, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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 04:33, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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 06:04, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- Done. Hit me again, Sam!! *lol* Atsme 02:37, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
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 21:49, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for your thoroughness and the time you invested in this review. It is much appreciated. Atsme 03:29, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Gabor B. Racz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://budapesttimes.hu/2016/01/29/from-flight-to-fame/
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.texaspain.org/assets/Board/racz.pdf
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140413124615/http://eurekamag.com/research/030/404/capnography-operating-room-introductory-directory.php to http://eurekamag.com/research/030/404/capnography-operating-room-introductory-directory.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:35, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Categories:- Misplaced Pages good articles
- Natural sciences good articles
- Misplaced Pages Did you know articles that are good articles
- Biography articles of living people
- GA-Class biography articles
- GA-Class biography (science and academia) articles
- Low-importance biography (science and academia) articles
- Science and academia work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- GA-Class medicine articles
- Low-importance medicine articles
- GA-Class society and medicine articles
- Mid-importance society and medicine articles
- Society and medicine task force articles
- All WikiProject Medicine pages
- GA-Class United States articles
- Low-importance United States articles
- GA-Class United States articles of Low-importance
- GA-Class Texas articles
- Mid-importance Texas articles
- WikiProject Texas articles
- WikiProject United States articles
- GA-Class Hungary articles
- Low-importance Hungary articles
- All WikiProject Hungary pages