Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Osteopathic medicine in the United States/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 00:43, 17 March 2008.

Osteopathic medicine in the United States

[edit]
Check external links

Self-nominator.Article has matured a great deal in past months. The topic is an important one within the history of medicine and the current state of health care in the United States. I believe the article touches all the most important points within its topic, represents all major views fairly and with a neutral point of view.Bryan Hopping T 05:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed many external links, fixed the two dead reference links and changed 2 subject headings. Could someone point out further subject headings that need clarification? Bryan Hopping T 14:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
    • Gevitz N. Visible and recognized: osteopathic invisibility syndrome and the 2% solution. The DO. March 1997:23-4, 26-7. PMID 9107129 What is "The DO"?
    • A lot of websites need publisher and/or last access date information.
    • A couple of links go to sites that require registration (NYTimes, NEngl J Med). There is a field in the cite web that allows you to say "format=fee required" or "format=registration required", which is helpful to use.
    • Current footnote 36 (AMA policy H-295.876) is lacking publisher, same for 38, which looks to me like a duplicate of 36, which could be combined? Right now it's a bald link, which is against the MOS.
    • A number of websites are linked with a bald link when they should be formatted like a normal reference.
    • Current footnotes 49 and 52 look identical to me, the Singer, Allen M. ones. Combine?
    • The Cummings, M. Dobbbs KJ link takes me to "Select a Wolters Kluwer Source" page, not the article.
    • Formating issue, but the See also section usually goes before the footnotes. MOS experts, please correct me if I'm wrong.
Use the link tool checker up top here, there are a number of things it's flagging as suspicious or that timeout. Ealdgyth | Talk 17:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why the tool is calling some links "timeouts." They appear to work perfectly. I fixed the "Gevtiz" & "Cummings" references. I moved the "see also" section ahead of the references. Bryan Hopping T 19:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This article needs a lot of work. I've listed below some problems in the lead. I agree with Graham wrt the section headings; they are just odd and there are probably too many. Note: I'm a lay reader from the UK so I'm pretty ignorant about OM in the US. BTW: have you considered handling the detail of the History as a separate Timeline of Osteopathic Medicine in the United States list? Then the broad transitions can be covered in flowing prose here.

  • Why is there a picture of surgery in an article on osteopathic medicine?
  • "based on the premise that the primary role of the physician is to facilitate the body's inherent ability to heal itself" This can neither be an accurate or comprehensive definition of OM as practiced in the US today (based on what I've read in the rest of the article and related articles). I see that it comes directly from your Lesho-1999 reference, which goes on to cover structure and function as well as the musculoskeltal system's effect on other organs. You need to revise the first sentence or two to attempt a better definition, ideally cited to an authority.
  • "Though practiced..osteopathy" the reader doesn't yet know that OM is mainstream and isn't enlightened as to what the differences between OM and osteopathy are.
  • "Physicians who graduate from osteopathic medical schools..hold a doctorate in osteopathic medicine" this is a tautology. Also, the fact that there are osteopathic medical schools that are distinct from "allopathic" medical schools needs to be stated more clearly and separately.
  • "sometimes known as osteopathic physicians" If this is only sometimes, does it merit a mention in the lead? Alternatively, if this is an accepted term, why not just say "Osteopathic physicians hold a Doctorate in Ostepathic Medicine (D.O.)". The word "osteopathic" is wikilinked back to this article.
  • "while holders of a similar, but far more common M.D. degree are known as allopathic physicians" the commas are wrong here and the sentence is too long. This use of "allopathic" is not common outside the US and, I suspect, not common within the US outside of osteopathic vs allopathic discussions. Can you rephrase this?
  • "The existence of this distinction and of D.O.s as licensed physicians is not widely known." What distinction? That there are two kinds of physician in the US? If you drop the "of this distinction and", the sentence no longer works. Why does this sentence need three citations? Only the Gevitz citation is important.
  • "the profession gradually moved closer to mainstream medicine" this movement only occurred in the US, it would appear. This sentence is trying to cover too much. I suggest you start with the foundation as one sentence. Say that this remains a complementary medicine in the rest of the world in another sentence. Then describe how it moved towards the mainstream in the US.
  • "Today" (and "currently" elsewhere) see WP:DATED.
  • "achievement of normal body mechanics as central to maintaining good health" is an utterly meaningless statement to a lay non-osteopathic reader. I see it comes from your source, who I suspect is over-using jargon.
  • "D.O. physicians" starting a sentence with an acronym is really confusing at times. Too many dots. Why don't you just say "Osteopathic physicians".
  • So far, OMM is the only thing that separates the training. But reading this, you get the impression that it is only used to treat musculoskeletal disorders (i.e., you indicate where this therapy has evidence of effectiveness but don't clarify that OM uses that therapy for other disorders too). Your Lesho-1999 source actually states the use of manipulation outwith musculoskeletal disorders is a key distinguishing feature of osteopathic medicine.
  • "a social movement" This leaves the reader wondering. What aspect of society is it campaigning for?
  • "osteopathic curricula". Eh?
  • "D.O.s outside the U. S. are known as "osteopaths"" Not true. An osteopath doesn't hold a "Doctorate of Osteopathic Medicine".
  • "modalities" is an erudite term.
  • "Discussions about" The reader isn't interested in navel-gazing discussions. If there is a problem with "distinctiveness" then state that.
  • "More recently, the topic of for-profit medical education has become an issue." Again, see WP:DATED. This passive sentence says there is an "issue" but doesn't say what the issue is.
  • I suspect the lead isn't an adequate summary of the body. Look at each section and see if it is covered by the lead.
Colin°Talk 00:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To respond to your first question, many osteopathic physicians are surgeons (in the same capacity as their allopathic counterparts). The fact that the article doesn't make this clear, leading you to ask the question "Why is there a picture of surgery in an article on osteopathic medicine?" shows me that the article does in fact need some work. Thanks for the feedback. I see that the article is particularly confusing for UK readers, leading me to think the separation from European Osteopathy needs to be explained more thoroughly, perhaps with its own section. Thanks for the feedback! Bryan Hopping T 01:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I understood that the DOs did everything an MD did, including surgery. In fact, I'd say you overemphasize the similarities of the two medical schools so much that the reader really does puzzle at times to understand what the fuss is about. Colin°Talk 07:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well to answer that question I'd say, "the whole thing is fuss." Seriously, it is difficult to write an article about a topic that insists we all make a fuss about how "distinct" it is, but from any objective viewpoint is largely identical with what it calls "allopathic" medicine. Look at the sources, you will see that the entire field is riddled with discussions regarding how to define itself, or if it should even be defined as a distinct entity at all. This creates some confusion in discussing it as a defined "thing." (Aside - what does wikipedia have to offer in term of guidelines regarding topics whose definition has little consensus?) In any case, I appreciate your feedback immensely, and I will consider carefully how this article can be advanced in an appropriate, meaningful way. Bryan Hopping T 08:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose—1a and MOS. Here are random examples. Needs a different person to go through the whole text.

  • If you must shove dots into "US", please don't space the letters (inconsistent in this respect, in any case): see MOS. And suddenly it's spelt out, inconsistently.
  • The print on the pie graph is SO tiny; do we really have to click on it to understand the basics of the graph? And can you use sentence, not title case, consistently?
  • "Between 1980 and 2005, the number of osteopathic graduates per year increased over 250 percent from about 1,000 to 2,800." Um ... Isn't that 180%? You may think it's 280% (to harmonise these statements just underlines the redundancy), but remember that a doubling is a 100% increase, yes?
  • "1-2% of physicians"—en dash for ranges; which is it to be, % or spelt out? I see both.
  • "varies widely in different regions"—"varies widely between regions"? Tony (talk) 09:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Most of what is written above also bothers me. There seems to be a lot of trivia, almost like this article tries to fill up space. But here are some specifics:

  • I know the AMA uses "allopathic", but frankly that's an annoying POV term that was invented by those who promote homeopathy as an alternative to medicine and science. The problem with its use is to a lot of educated individuals is that only "alternative medicine" uses allopathy or evidence-based, so it implies that osteopathy is an "alternative medicine."
  • The article needs to clearly state that a lot of osteopathic practices are unscientific and unproven in the lead. Many DO's have eliminated those practices from their own medical armory, to the point that DO's and MD's are almost indistinguishable.
  • Just for information purposes, it should be made clear that when Stillman founded osteopathy, the state of medicine in the US was atrocious. It's alluded to, but it's not clear. A casual reader would think that this is no different than Hahnemann starting up homeopathy.
  • There are a lot of MOS issues. I was going to write them all down, then I saw what was written here, and I figure most of it was caught. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • The term allopathic should be used sparingly, if at all, since it doubles as a pejorative. There are ways to refer to MDs without testing these chilly waters.
  • The US graphic defines 3 groups "early," "middle," and "late." Is there a source that blocks states into these groups? It's unreferenced. Antelan talk 00:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that it is pejorative. In fact, I only see the term used in conjunction with evidence-based medicine (I go with the opinion that medicine isn't medicine without evidence) and alternative medicine types. I'm shocked that the AMA actually uses that term. I'm resigning from them on Monday. Seriously. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 03:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Osteopathic_medicine_in_the_United_States/archive1&oldid=1138468536"