Talk:Lagos University Teaching Hospital

Student project

Pending more information. Part of a task for The University of Sydney. Creatorhj244 (talk) 03:12, 4 November 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Creatorhj244 (talk • contribs) 03:08, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Why does source not meet Wikipedia standards? (Not doubting, just asking)

Greetings David notMD, you recently removed a section from this article [1], and your note said "the ref did not meet Wikipedia standard for medical research, so all deleted". May I ask you how you have come to that conclusion? I certainly don't doubt it as you are much more of an expert than I am, it's just that I use Wikipedia:UPSD and it does not flag the journal as predatory for me. Is this about that one article only (and if yes, how does one spot that it is bad science?), or do I need to ping Headbomb somehow so that "Journal of Pharmacological Sciences" gets included in their script? --LordPeterII (talk) 14:50, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

My deletion rests on two reasons. First, any article about a research organization should not be including descriptions of specific research projects. Per the note I left for the student, as example, think what that would mean for an article about Harvard University Medical College. Second, and perhaps less germane, per WP:MEDRS, individual clinical trials are not accepted as reference evidence for medical/health information. David notMD (talk) 18:35, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi David notMD. Thank you for spotting this. Please could you give me a little more clarity why you removed the section? Is there any way I can include the information I found about the project, or is it redundant for this article? I am still learning so any more help you could give me would be awesome. Thank you! Creatorhj244 (talk) 23:35, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Information can be true and supported by references, but still not appropriate for an encyclopedia article. For entertainers and celebrities and video games and movies the dismissive term is "fancruft." For medical/health topics, standards described at WP:MEDRS disallow using animal studies or individual human trial journal articles as evidence, leaving only reviews of multiple clinical trials. For this article, my decision to delete the content was based on it being about one human research study. Articles about research organizations or universities do not drill down to reporting on individual projects. David notMD (talk) 11:42, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

On a separate topic, the building image added to the article is not of the teaching hospital. David notMD (talk) 11:42, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

@David notMD Thanks for clarifying that, this resolves my confusion. Then at least my script is working as intended, and I'll just be careful to check specific standards like WP:MEDRS more thoroughly.

btw: Could you maybe take a look as why WP:UPSD flags the source of Poluyi et al (https://criticalcare.imedpub.com/profile-of-intensive-care-unit-admissions-and-outcomes-in-a-tertiary-care-center-of-a-developing-country-in-west-africa-a-5-year-a.php?aid=9815) as "predatory" for me? Should that one be removed as well, or is it a false positive? --LordPeterII (talk) 12:30, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I cannot help. Journal fairly new (started 2015), and the Poluyi article (2016) does not show up in PubMed searches. Issue may not be about jounnal being 'predatory' as much as weak in othe ways. David notMD (talk) 16:21, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks again, that's fine for me. Guess the reference can stay in the article then, unless someone knows the journal and disagrees explicitly. --LordPeterII (talk) 08:06, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Nope, found it: It is listed in this template, which explains that OMICS Publishing Group is the owner of the journal. And that owner is predatory and was even sued by the Federal Trade Commission for it! Thus, sadly, @Creatorhj244 I would strongly suggest to remove that and the related info from the references. --LordPeterII (talk) 08:33, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Poorly written

"The APIN project is a non-governmental organisation registered with the Nigerian Corporate Affairs Commission which was initiated to research and aid the prevention of HIV/AIDS. APIN stands for AIDS Prevention Initiative in Nigeria. The initiative has been running since 2000 evolving the health industry in Nigeria to better combat the disease.[15] LUTH is a supporter of the project, participating in the health initiative to improve patient care. There is also an APIN clinic as a part of the teaching hospital.[16] The Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) helps to fund the project and the first grant of $1.7 million was donated in 2008 to fast track the results of the initiative. The project states that their mission is to “providing cutting edge, innovative and sustainable approaches to address…public health” so that Nigeria may improve “program management, service delivery, capacity building, research, strategic information and advocacy in partnership with other stakeholders”.[17] The initiative now assists approximately a quarter of people with HIV in Nigeria and provides antiretroviral care to more than 266000 patients in 570 states in Nigeria. It now has a budget of more than $120 million and is undergoing the implementation of a partnership with the US Centres for Disease Control and Prevention.[18]"

This section is poorly written, and also doubtful that it belongs in the article at all. There is no citation confirming that LUTH is a supporter of the project. The fact that there is an APIN clinic connected to the teaching hospital has weak support from the ref, a journal article that lists one of the many authors as being at a APIN clinic. Ref #14 is same as ref #18, and as written, both go to the Univ Sydney Library rather than the journal. "...a budget of more than $120..." implies an annual budget, whereas the ref describes the amount as a multi-year cumulative budget. David notMD (talk) 20:04, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for this feedback David notMD. Would you recommend changing this information to keep it in the article, or just remove this section? I appreciate your specific feedback, this is beyond helpful! Creatorhj244 (talk) 23:36, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I lean toward Deletionism. Many of my contributions in my area (nutrition) are deleting bad content and bad references. Your call on this one. David notMD (talk) 03:10, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Help creating a nav box

Hello David notMD and other editors. Please could i have some advice/help on creating a nav box for this article! Any tips would be greatly appreciated! Creatorhj244 (talk) 00:58, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

More feedback

Hi @Creatorhj244, a few more things:

- Reference #18 links here [2], but on that site I cannot find any information that shows a direct connection between Harvard GHI and this hospital/Nigeria/Lagos. While there definitely is a connection to Harvard (as the reference called "Harvard LUTH" [3] shows), from the first source alone that can not be inferred.

- Maybe you should check out that second source ("Harvard LUTH"), which actually shows they also cooperate on something called "BRAINS". If you click the links, you eventually also land at a detailed description here [4] by the National Institutes of Health.

- The picture you just added seems to show Lagos Island, but if you check the hospital location you see that it is actually not located there, but rather somewhere between "Lagos Mainland", "Surulere" or "Apapa" (names of the districts; see the map here). And don't worry too much about providing a picture; unless you know someone in Nigeria who can take a photo, you will probably not find a fitting one. And even B-Class articles do not require a photo! The article can be okay without one. And you also have the university pic, which fits into context better.

- Please remove the information and source #4 from Poluyi et al [5], as it stems from a predatory publishing group that does not abide to scientific standards. It's not really needed anyway, and there's no way for it to stay in the article.

- I randomly stumbled upon this article [6] from the guardian, which provides a lot of info about infrastructure problems and other stuff. Might take some time to figure out how to best include it, but I think the article could benefit from it.

- The "Lagos Metropolitan Area" Nav Box is great, but I don't see how the "Health Care" Nav Box fits. I am no expert on these, but in general I think they are to allow you to quickly find closely related articles. However, "Health Care" is on a very abstract level and the box includes articles that explain broad concepts like Medicine. If you check out random other hospital articles (e.g. Adventist Health Glendale or Elmhurst_Hospital_Center), they never have this nav box included, and rather a list of similar hospitals/the area (the latter of which you have).

--LordPeterII (talk) 14:47, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, normal Google is a bit weird: If you search in the "news" section, you actually find a lot more articles about this hospital (arguably not all are good, ofc). I just found a few more that might be of interest to you/the article:

- The Guardian about rising child mortality [7] (in the article LUTH and their maternity ward are mentioned as examples that aim to combat this)

- A Nigerian newspaper about medical tourism in Nigeria and inexpensive heart surgeries at LUTH [8]

You would probably not include the whole articles, but e.g. a few words about how LUTH's pediatric efforts are perceived might be nice additions to the sections, so they read less like a mere list of statistics.

--LordPeterII (talk) 15:04, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@LordPeterII Thank you so much for these edits! I have implemented them into the article! I am just in the process of revising it before submitting it to my university assignment page. Would it be possible if you could now revise the quality scale of the article to see if it can be lifted to a C class article? Thank you again! Creatorhj244 (talk) 05:11, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Upgraded assessment

Alright, I have upgraded this from Start to C, because the article:

- cites more than one reliable source Y

- is better developed in style, structure, and quality than Start-Class Y

- has a reasonable encyclopedic style Y

I don't see much bias or any original research here, which anyway would still be allowed for it to reach C class. The article could still use further edits to improve the flow, some restructuring, maybe some WP:MOS improvements, and overall doesn't quite match the quality of B class articles yet.

In conclusion, I believe that the assessment as C class is appropriate.

I also restored it to "Mid" importance, since after seeing the media coverage and the scope of cooperation with Harvard it seems to me that the hospital is of quite some importance within Lagos/Nigeria.

@David notMD feel free to challenge this, since I'm still not that experienced. But I believe I'm being reasonably objective here, and Creatorhj244 did a good job improving the article.

--LordPeterII (talk) 09:48, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion the article has become bloated with information that has little to no value in describing LUTH. Example: "On the 27th of December 2018, representatives of The Guardian visited the Cancer Treatment Centre and were advised that that equipment such as linear accelerators, brachytherapy machines, Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI Scanners) and CT scans were due to be installed in the centre.[11]" There are lists, descriptions of flooding and infrastructure problems, etc. If by comparison, one looks at articles listed at List of university hospitals, the great majority of them are under 15,000 bytes. In its current form, the LUTH article is more than 25,000 bytes. David notMD (talk) 10:46, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Fair point. That's probably a frequent issue when trying to improve an article, that "more" does not automatically mean "better". However, I still feel like this is a solid C class, at least judging from the quality scale. I mean, that still allows original research and bias (!!), things I loathe and which this article thankfully does not have imo. Furthermore, inline citations are actually only listed as a requirement #1 for B class, and these are already done here very thoroughly.

From the C class entry: "Useful to a casual reader, but would not provide a complete picture for even a moderately detailed study. Considerable editing is needed to close gaps in content and solve cleanup problems."

That pretty much describes how I personally see the article atm. And yes, even though I don't lean towards deletionism, I can agree that this "considerable editing" is needed still, and mostly will include trimming down bloated stuff (I'm partly to blame for that, having suggested some articles last-minute that were included in a sub-optimal way). But again, that would already be the road towards B class, if I understand correctly. --LordPeterII (talk) 11:17, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you LordPeterII and David notMD. I will implement these other edits to the article. Would it be possible if the alert of the article needing an image could be removed as I have rectified this issue. I understand the concern around the article appearing 'bloated'. However, for the task I am completing it is required I have 2000 words on the article. Do you have any suggestions on where I could expand the article, and where I can take information out? Creatorhj244 (talk) 23:44, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

No instructor should require that changes to an existing article be of a predetermined size, nor must include an image. I am a wrong person to ask about making an article longer. When I started on Tocotrienol it was 59,696 bytes and 89 references; when I finished it was 18,775 bytes and 35 references, and a better article. Recently, a Univ Sydney student increased Yukon Jack (liqueur) from 2,125 bytes to 15,215 bytes and I shortened it to 6,835. David notMD (talk) 01:35, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with David notMD here, a fixed word number is definitely not a suitable quality measurement for a Wikipedia article. It's probably easier to measure for the instructor, but that doesn't make it a good criteria. While I personally don't lean towards so-called "deletionism" as David notMD might do, I surely appreciate this side of the effort to improve Wikipedia's quality. There's actually a lot of background about these stances, and also some rough guidelines about article size. And as is quoted here: "Perfection is achieved not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." (Antoine de Saint-Exupéry)

And in general, that's pretty much the ideal process in Wikipedia imo: Someone adds a lot of info to an article, and then someone else trims it down and keeps the good stuff, and then a third one fixes some minor spelling mistakes. But if it's imperative for your assignment to have a certain word count, voilá, just hand in the current article revision. I recon it'll never get towards a higher quality class without a nice trim, but this has come a long way from where it was, and really there's no way for your instructor to keep someone like David notMD from eventually doing their part.

As for the missing image alert, I don't feel it's justified to remove it. You added some pictures to the article which is nice, but these are all "example" images that show related stuff, and there is still no picture of the hospital building itself. So imo it should stay there until someone uploads a picture to Wikimedia Commons (which, unless you happen to know a guy in Lagos, might take a while ^^). Which, again, in no way is diminishing the article's quality. --LordPeterII (talk) 21:36, 22 November 2020 (UTC)