Template:Did you know nominations/Intercostal nerve block
- The following discussion 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: rejected by — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:50, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Copyvio
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Intercostal nerve block
[edit]- ... that intercostal nerve block is among the oldest of peripheral nerve blocks, being first described in early 1907?
Created by Aleksa Lukic (talk). Self nominated at 01:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC).
- Comment: Lots of assertions in the article do not appear to be sourced. This is particularly important in a medical article. I will do some copyediting for grammar. EricEnfermero HOWDY! 02:38, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- Comment for all of my assertions I used some source. I could have used more different sources (and I'm certainly planning to add some) but I figured it would be too much work for one night, so I left only these 20 sources, and I din't want to be too much repetitive in citing sources where maybe it's not necessary. If you have specific areas where citing sources would be needed you can note me, or you can add citation needed on those places, and I will cite source I used. Cheers. Alex discussion ★ 03:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- BlueMoonset asked me to look in (thanks!!!). I strongly recommend rejecting this article for DYK. First, a large number of books are used, and there are no page numbers for verification. Second, although I've only been through a few of the journal sources, every one I've checked so far is a primary source, suggesting that the author of the article is not familiar with WP:MEDRS. Third, some of the language in the article suggests that a close paraphrasing or copyvio check would not be out of order. Sorry, but we shouldn't put medical content on the main page that isn't properly sourced. Perhaps Jmh649 or Jfdwolff will also look in. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- I've now been through more of the journal sources, most of them are very old, and the only review used is more than ten years old. Although not a matter affecting DYK, the author of this article should also consult Wikipedia:MEDMOS#Surgeries and procedures SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:15, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- Comment. Thanks SandyGeorgia for spotting this. For a new article (which is the purpose of DYK) this is actually a jolly good effort. I agree that a lot of sources are primary, and this is something I recognise from the anaesthetic literature; the Lennard source is the strongest one and we do need page numbers to improve WP:V here. My view would be that with a few fixes this is actually a pretty nice DYK candidate, and once the sourcing is improved it can be given a {{WPMED}} B-class. JFW | T@lk 05:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- I have templated all the book references with {{cite book}}, adding page numbers where possible. Again, I think the article is not far off being okay for DYK. JFW | T@lk 06:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you so much, Jfdwolff; I don't know how you find time to do it all. If you have the books, have you been able to do a preliminary check for copyvio, plagiarism, or too close paraphrasing? If so, I will withdraw my objection. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:37, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
BlueMoonset and Jfdwolff, My first read of the article made me suspect copyvio, as the voice changed and was at odds with the main editor's writing style. Now that page numbers have been supplied, I have confirmed rather extensive cut-and-paste and close paraphrasing, listed some at Talk:Intercostal nerve block, and tagged the article copyvio. I also found one instance of text not verified by the source. There are also page ranges given on some book sources that are too broad to be able to verify or check the text. Because several editors had copyedited this article before my copyvio check, I am concerned that the entire article may be a copyvio, and it would probably best be deleted for a new start. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:54, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, SandyGeorgia. Given your description, I'm putting on the "X" icon, because this sounds just about unsolvable, though something might be salvaged if hurculean efforts at a rewrite are attempted. I'd like to request that we wait a week before rejecting the nomination to allow for the possibility of the latter, though if the article is deleted sooner, then naturally this should be closed. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
