Jump to content

Talk:St. Boniface Hospital/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: --Philcha (talk) 09:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Reviewer: --Malleus Fatuorum 00:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Philcha has asked for another editor to take over this review,[1] so I'm afraid that you're lumbered with me. Please allow me a day or two to familiarise myself with the subject and where the review is now.
Comments now posted below. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Start of review

[edit]

Hi, I'll be reviewing this article. The rules for GA reviews are stated at Good Article criteria. I usually do reviews in the order: coverage; structure; detailed walk-through of sections (refs, prose, other details); images (after the text content is stable); lead (ditto). Feel free to respond to my comments under each one, and please sign each response, so that it's clear who said what.

When an issue is resolved, I'll mark it with  Done. If I think an issue remains unresolved after responses / changes by the editor(s), I'll mark it  Not done. Occasionally I decide one of my comments is off-target, and strike it out

BTW I've occasionally had edit conflicts in review pages, and to reduce this risk I'd be grateful if you'd let me know when you're most active, so I can avoid these times. --Philcha (talk) 09:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in Eastern Canada, so I tend to be most active from about 20 to about 2 UTC, but sometimes (like now) I edit outside of that range. Thanks for the review; I'll take a look at it later today. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 12:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage

[edit]

(at the top level - I may have additional items under specific sections)

  • Nothing about the quality of patient care. I'm a Brit, and in UK there are published quality ratings, as well as occasional news stories that generally focus on the low points. Depending on how things are done in Canada, there may be relevant awards and ratings that could be relevant. --Philcha (talk) 10:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like Canada is out of step. In addition to UK, Google showed USA articles on hospital performance statistics, and WHO recommends stats. I think a a bare factual sentence that hospital performance statistics are not published in Canada should be added - possibly in the section about hospital services. --Philcha (talk) 05:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sentence added in "Assessment", but does it need to be cited? I haven't been able to find a source that says that explicitly. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
this article you noted above comments on lack of published hospital performance stats from CIHI, so looks nationwide - or did I misunderstand? --Philcha (talk) 17:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...yes, it does. I need more sleep, sorry. Thanks, Nikkimaria (talk) 03:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Structure

[edit]

(review when the items under "Coverage" are resolved)

Sources & citations

[edit]
Thanks. --Philcha (talk) 04:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done I'm a fan of Citation templates, as they handle all the nitty-gritty (quotes, italics, where to put links, etc.) The mark-up can look daunting if you code citation templates by hand, but refTools enable you to enter values in a form and then, when you click "Add", the tool inserts the citation template in the place you selected in the edit box. --Philcha (talk) 10:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced all citations with templates. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --Philcha (talk) 04:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Location

[edit]
Added some in the lead. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The lead is the wrong place to start - per WP:LEAD, the lead should not contain any thing that's not in the main text. --Philcha (talk) 04:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Granted. Okay, since there's not really enough information there for a section of its own, in which section would you suggest putting the information? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The lead also contains "It is located between the Red and Assiniboine Rivers in St. Boniface, across the river from downtown." I suggest this plus transport and parking form a section, possibly "Location". Alternatively, if the hospital's location has changed much, include the old and current lcation in "History". --Philcha (talk) 14:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BTW the source for bed capacity also says St. Boniface is the major francophone of Winnipeg - could in the "location" para / section, as a bit of local colour. There are often extras you can squeeze out of sources. --Philcha (talk) 16:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)--Philcha (talk) 16:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What's a "parkade" - a place where you play pinball with your car? Less facetiously, I don't think readers (esp non-Canadian) will care about the difference between a parking lot and a parkade. --Philcha (talk) 06:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History

[edit]
554 beds and 78 bassinets; added a note to that effect. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You should avoid "The hospital now has ..." as it may become out-of-date quite quickly. Your citation for Brief Historical Facts gives a date of 2005, although I don't know where you found that as the PDF contains no date. --Philcha (talk) 04:45, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded with 2003 figures. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --Philcha (talk) 16:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Linked - similar to a business, it means that by law the hospital is now a "legal person", meaning, among other things, that it can sue or be sued. I believe the designation also affects taxation, although I'm not sure of the particulars. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"can sue or be sued" looks like a dubious benefit for a hospital - I suspect there mst be other reasons.
I also note that The St. Boniface General Hospital Incorporation Act has vanished, and neither Internet Archive nor Web Cite has a back-up copy. --Philcha (talk) 04:45, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Link fixed. There probably are other reasons, but I'm no expert on law and thus don't know them. I can say, however, that most hospitals, higher educational institutions, etc, have an "Incorporation Act" under Province of Manitoba statutes. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Link fixed. Looking at the Incorporation Act, it seems to enable St. B's to act as a normal commercial operation, including commerical borrowing, except that it can't distribute dividends and there are restrictions on its holdings of land. Look at the question the other - was St. B's status previously, and are limitations did this create? Remember, this is a first-class hospital with a big reputation in some fields, so some readers will be non-Canadian. --Philcha (talk) 06:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The way I understand it (and please remember I am not by any means a legal expert), the land/buildings of St. Boniface were owned by the Grey Nuns, who were a charitable order running the hospital. By incorporating the hospital, the land and buildings now belong to St. Boniface Hospital Inc., and the corporation can now collect/borrow/invest money on its own behalf. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I remember one of your sources said St. B's is owned by a corporation - which, and does it operate other "subsidiaries"? I also note that the financial report you cited for the C$900,000 revenue deficit in 2008 was titled " ... Report to the Member of the Corporation", whihc is not the sort of phrase I'd expect in a commercial corp's accounts. It would be a big helpful if you can explain briefly any relevant differences. --Philcha (talk) 07:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The corporation is St. Boniface Hospital Inc., and it owns the hospital, the research centres, and the foundation. However, it's not a commercial operation, it's similar to a non-profit organization in some ways, but it also collects money from the government for services provided under Medicare. The report you read was a consolidation of reports from each individual branch to the corporation as a whole - basically a statement of what they're doing and what needs to be done. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, we can't go into the details of Manitoba / Canadian law. --Philcha (talk) 05:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done By "first free-standing research facility in Canada" do you mean separate from wards and theatres? I've just noticed that "it was the first free-standing research facility in Canada" is a complete lift from the source, contrary to WP:PLAGIARISM - please rephrase. --Philcha (talk) 11:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Every source that I've seen on the facility uses the phrase "first free-standing research facility in Canada", none actually explain it. Your explanation sounds reasonable, but IMO it would be OR to conclude that. I've altered the phrasing slightly. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re the plagiarism issue, it might help to note here other uses of the term, so show that's the standard term in that field.
I'll leave the meaning open for now in case you come across an explanation, but won't make a big deal of it. --Philcha (talk) 04:45, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Added another citation that uses the term. Is that what you meant by "note other uses"? I wasn't sure. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That helps, but I was thinking of noting additional sources in this page - for exmaple if you had 3 or 4, would use one in the article and save the rest here. --Philcha (talk) 16:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Besides the two listed in the article, I also found this one and this one. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These all look derived from St. B's publicity material. However that suggests they pass the phrase like a bag of sweets, so that's OK. --Philcha (talk) 06:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No longer relevant as sentence removed. --Philcha (talk) 04:45, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done I've just noticed that "History" mentions "The Research Foundation". Is this the same as "The St. Boniface Hospital & Research Foundation" in "Funding". If so, the coverage of the Research Foundation should be consolidated in 1 place, and "Funding" looks the better bet. --Philcha (talk) 07:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is the same, but it was put under "History" because despite being about the Foundation, it has absolutely nothing to do with funding. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, as far I can see the the Foundation's only activity is fund-raising - except for its International Award, a type of initiative that often is used to increase the profile of the award-givers (Mother Teresa and Pope John Paul II don't need another award to increase their profiles). --Philcha (talk)
Thanks. --Philcha (talk) 07:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that's fine, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:03, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Funding

[edit]
Not a great improvement, I'm afraid:
  • A History of Distinction says "The St. Boniface Hospital & Research Foundation was established during the hospital’s centenary celebration in 1971 to raise and distribute funds for health care research in Manitoba. Over the last 34 years, more than $98 million has been raised." But that looks like it's specifically for research, not normal care; and distributed over Manitoba as a whole, not just at St. B's. --Philcha (talk) 07:59, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Foundation Milestones gives some help (very bottom), but not a lot. --Philcha (talk) 05:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clearer now. --Philcha (talk) 05:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved by removing Lottery details. --Philcha (talk) 07:59, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These issues should now all be addressed. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Fraid not. You really need to take more care over what sources actually say and don't say.
St. Boniface Hospital & Research Foundation - Megamillion Lottery provides the rules for a lottery (which?) and does not clearly describe others. --Philcha (talk) 04:56, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, okay, I now realize what happened: the Mega-Million Lotto page is the main page for all of their lotteries, and thus changes when the old one closes and new one opens. Anyways, text has been moved around a bit and a more general figure for dollars raised has been added. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved by removing Lottery details. --Philcha (talk) 07:59, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Just noticed lots of "$" without qualification. In the rest of the world this usually means US$, so at least the first mention here should specify Canadian dollars - "C$". I'd be inclined to mark all Canadian dollar amounts as "C$". --Philcha (talk) 07:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Marked. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and for w-linking the first "C$". --Philcha (talk) 05:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just realised there's another aspect of public health care - how patients are allocated to hospitals. Canada's Health Care System (Medicare) (already cited) seems to say that this is a matter for the provinces. I think the St. B article needs at least an outline, as systems vary between countries / states / provinces / whatever and also over time. For example in the National Health Service (England) as since the late 1980s the pattern (subject to "tweaks" by governments) is that a patient, generally advised by the GP, tries to find the best "deal" based on e.g. facilities, waiting time, travel for the patient and relatives, etc.; for example my wife need 2 knee replacements, did some research and selected a centre that was about 2 hrs away but specialises in joint replacements, in preference to the local general hospital 15 mins travel away. However before the late 1980s English patients generally went where they were told. --Philcha (talk) 09:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Research

[edit]
Summary of notable publications added in relevant subsections under research. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Not done As far as I can see the first para "Research activities can be found throughout St. Boniface Hospital and range from basic scientific research in the lab through to clinical research studies that may eventually lead to new medicines, surgical procedures and devices that are adopted world-wide" is not supported by any cited source. --Philcha (talk) 12:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cited. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Grants and Awards appears to mention St. B's in the context of researcher CVs, not types of research. I think the problem is that the MHRC source is only interested in very specific grants it funds, not at the whole of St. B's research. Western Economic Diversification Takes Research Initiative To Heart covers a long-term commitment, but is more informative but covers only cardio-vascular. --Philcha (talk) 06:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rephrased. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --Philcha (talk) 06:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Source added. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • To support "global reputation for "excellence in medical research"", you should use an independent source, not the hospital itself. --
Independent source added. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That source is one of the bodies that funds St. B's research, and is a government department - i.e. partly promotional. --Philcha (talk) 06:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cited. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Review paused

[edit]

I've seen so many citation issues (see WP:V) that it would be a waste of time to proceed with a detailed review of the rest until the editor(s) have time to fix the existing issues and check that all statements in the rest of the article are properly supported. I hope the editor(s) will make a determined effort to fix the problems, as there's no doubt that this is an important hospital - see the research staff's contributions to the medical literature that I found by Googling.--Philcha (talk) 12:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier issues have been addressed, and I believe that the rest of the article is properly supported. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Education

[edit]

Services

[edit]
  • This looks like a heavyweight hospital, which makes me suspect it's likely to be a regional centre for specialised care - e.g. conditions requiring complex equiment and expertise, etc. For example I see a few occurrences of "Winnipeg Regional Health Authority", which look like pointers to services that accept patients from a wider region rather than just from Winnipeg. --Philcha (talk) 10:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The WRHA is the governing body for all regional hospitals and care facilities, as opposed to pointers, although patients from smaller hospitals are sometimes referred to St. B. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The long list of short sub-sections looks like a laundry list. I think the most notable service deserve their own sub-sections, while the rest can be grouped under "Other services". Notable services would include those associated with the hospital's research facilities and those that act as regional centres. --Philcha (talk) 10:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reorganized. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Putting on "On Hold" - to be fix in 1 week

[edit]

Section "Research" still has 2 issues, and that section is very nearly to hold - and they are of a type I've noticed often since the start of the GA review, i.e. not making sure that the sources and the article matching exactly in content, not just vaguely similar. I dont' remember how long ago this review started, but it's far too long. I've had some "my" articles passed in a day, and very few go longer than a week, see User:Philcha#Improved_and_got_passed_as_GA. You need better preparation before nominating, and especially accuracy. I'm putting the review on "On Hold" for a week, i.e. by the end of a week this is passed or failed - see Wikipedia:GAN. The main issues have been:

  • Your sources have not fulling and exactly supported the text in the article. Please check every phrase in the article and the phrasing in the corresponding sources."Research"
  • To many PR sources. I've not had to check this, because I still found sourcing issues in "Research". --Philcha (talk) 08:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

(to be done when any issues in the main text have been resolved) link checker

[edit]

(to be done when any issues in the main text have been resolved)

Use of images

[edit]
  • It would be great if you could get permission to use the pic of the original 4-bed "cottage" hospital building of St. B's, to show how it's grown. If this is a non-free image, which is very likely (look for copyright notices on the source page), I think it would fall under the fair use policy if placed next to the text about St. B's growth. In that case (assuming the pic is non-free) you'd have to complete a Fair Use Rationale. There's an example of a FUR at File:Moo2ResearchMenu472.png (a pic I loaded and used) to show the wiki-code. Naturally you'd have different values in the sections of the FUR - must identify the artcile where used, a separate FUR needed for each article in which used; always important to show that you're using a small copy that does not compete with versions that the owner may sell; source is important; reason would be to illustrate St. B's rise from very modest beginnings, and the nearby lead pic would help make that point. --Philcha (talk) 07:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Added with FUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(rest to be done when any issues in the main text have been resolved)

Lead

[edit]

(to be done when any issues in the main text have been resolved)

What's left to do

[edit]

OK, I've had a good look through now, and I think it's pretty close to GA. Most of the issues Philcha identified seem to have been addressed satisfactorily, so for the sake of clarity I'll list here what I think remains to be done.

Lead
  • The lead is a little on the short side, and doesn't really summarise the article adequately. I think it could usefully be about twice the current length, and needs to cover things like services offered, number of patients treated, important reasearch topics/centres and the like, basically summarising the detail in each of the main sections.
Expanded
  • "St. Boniface Hospital is also involved in medical research and education." What does "involved in" mean? Could cover a multitude of things. Why not be more direct, as in "St. Boniface also carries out medical research in the areas of ... and provides internships and practicum positions for students from the University of Manitoba's education and research branches" for instance?
Changed
Clinical research
  • "The I. H. Asper Clinical Research Institute facilitates clinical trials of the discoveries made at the Centre." What centre?
The Research Centre - added
Institute of Cardiovascular Sciences
  • "St. Boniface Hospital's Institute of Cardiovascular Sciences is run by Dr. Pawan Singal ...". This isn't really encyclopedic, and may change at any moment anyway. Is Singal especially important in some way? Those running the other facilities haven't been named.
Removed
Division of Neurodegenerative Disorders
  • "The four principal investigators collectively have over 150 journal publications." As of when? 2009? I'm also worried about this being kept up to date. Will there still be four principal investigators tomorrow, next year, the year after?
Reworded slightly and dated
Services
  • "The Rehabilitation program ...". Why not "Rehabilitation Program"?
Changed
  • "The emergency room ... is currently working to reduce patient wait times." A room is working?
Changed to "department"
Cardiac Sciences Program
  • "The Cardiac Sciences Program (including Cardiac Surgery, Cardiology, Cardiac Anesthesiology and critical care) ...". Why are "Cardiac Surgery" etc. capitalised but not "critical care"? None of them seem to be proper nouns anyway.
All are now capitalized (they are each departments within the CSP, and thus are proper nouns - clarified)
Woman & Child Program
  • Why is "program" capitalised in "Woman & Child Program", but not in "Labour and Delivery program"?
"Labour and Delivery" is the proper name for that department, which is part of the "Woman & Child Program" - clarified
Assessment
  • "The hospital is currently trying to reduce wait times for emergency room patients." This will age, and may already have aged. When is "currently"? As of 2009?
Dated 2009
  • "The average wait time for cardiac surgery is 14 days." The source cited gives wait times as medians, not averages, and the 14 days applies only to critically ill patients. The median across all cardiac patients is 26 days. Again though we need to date this statistic, "as of 2009" or whatever.
Changed and dated
References
  • There are at least three dead links.[2]
Fixed two, but the third still seems to be working [3]

--Malleus Fatuorum 23:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:St._Boniface_Hospital/GA1&oldid=1237964558"