Template:Did you know nominations/List of instruments used in endocrinology

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by reviewer, closed by AirshipJungleman29 talk 00:25, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

List of instruments used in endocrinology

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

Schematic of Prader orchidometer

• ... that instruments used in endocrinology include a string of testicle-shaped beads? Sources: Martine, E, ed. (2015). Concise medical dictionary (Ninth ed.). Oxford: OUP. p. 540. ISBN 9780191059575. Retrieved 24 February 2024. The Prader orchidometer consists of a collection of testicle-shaped beads of different sizes...; Niederberger, C (2011). "Clinical evaluation of the male". In Niederberger, C (ed.). An Introduction to Male Reproductive Medicine. Cambridge University Press. p. 38. ISBN 9781139493932. Retrieved 19 February 2024. The Prader orchidometer consists of a string of oval-shaped beads...
  • Reviewed:
  • Comment: Image only a schematic and therefore optional. The article's prose size is measured as 48 words 197 words or 1428 characters, but obviously not including its main body, which, as often with stand-alone lists, is actually a table. I therefore humbly request an exception to the rule of 1500 characters. First DYK nomination. On a tangent from the Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced articles/Backlog drives/February 2024.

5x expanded by NikosGouliaros (talk). Self-nominated at 22:34, 24 February 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/List of instruments used in endocrinology; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• The problem I have with this article is that this isn't a particularly 'good' 1,400+ characters; lose the three WP:SEAOFBLUE lists, and we're at little over 1,000. Even if we were to count the content in boxes, virtually all of the Description column is unsourced. I am reminded of arguments made earlier this month at 2024 Netball Nations Cup. In short, I wouldn't say no, but I'd want to see some more work on this. (Note also that I do my QPQs oldest first; other editors are free to jump in ahead of me.)--Launchballer 10:39, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

@Launchballer: Thank you for your review! I understand the policies; I still think that the table contains some substantial prose, and substantial encyclopedic content (unlike - I dare say - 2024 Netball Nations Cup). I believe the table format works well here, and changing it to prose would not serve a purpose other than to make it DYK-eligible. I do not think your concerns that the lead is not very substantial are unwarranted; though I truly don't think more introductory content, other than an outline of endocrinology as a medical specialty, is either needed, or indeed to be located in the sources. My seas of blue - which by the way are not the truest ones, as they are separated by commas - serve exactly to outline endocrinology, and I don't see why they should be excluded.

As regards citations, they are absent from (almost) all boxes in the Description column because the citations in the end of each row, under Uses, cover the respective descriptions as well. My research before nominating yielded few standalone lists in the DYK archives that I could use as guides, and not an absolutely clear policy on where in a table row inline citations must be placed. (Full disclosure: I do not exactly comprehend what WP:WHENNOTCITE tries to say about lists and tables). I also note Featured Lists from the sciences with somewhat comparable ostensibly uncited columns, like List of parasites of the marsh rice rat or Camouflage methods. In any case, the description of the ultrasound system is in citation 4, of a continuous glucose monitor in citations 7 and 8, and so on. Still, if you feel inline citations should be repeated there as well, that's no biggy.

Thoughts? NikosGouliaros (talk) 16:50, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm with you, this article is a bit better than the cup article. With the benefit of a few days, I wonder if it's worth letting the lists 'breathe' a bit, for example "the hypothalamus, the pituitary gland, the thyroid" or "various diseases of the thyroid gland such as X, various metabolic bone disorders such as Y". I made a test edit, and I got it up to 1,497 without the "such as"es.--Launchballer 10:29, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

@NikosGouliaros: If you're still around, please respond to the above.--Launchballer 23:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I reinstated my test edit, so this is just above 1500; there may very well be possibilities for concision but given that Andreas Kieber was IARed and ran yesterday with no complaints despite being under, and that there is clearly well over 1500 characters of content in the article, I'm IARing here as well. Full review needed.--Launchballer 07:54, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

If I had know about Andreas Kieber, it would have been pulled. The test edit is far from ideal; the number of repetitions of "various" is excessive, and a decent copyedit would take the article below 1500 prose characters once again: this is a hard number that should always be met, and I'm frankly shocked that any article was allowed to slip by. This article needs an actual expansion, not gratuitous additions of unimportant words to pad character count. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:04, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Cheerfully reverted. I do notice that Nikos has not edited since 23 March, and I'm not convinced that he will return, so I'm minded to close this.--Launchballer 22:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC)