Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Anna Bågenholm/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 by SandyGeorgia 19:32, 22 November 2009 [1].

Anna Bågenholm edit

Nominator(s): Theleftorium 21:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured article because it's interesting and I think it meets the FA criteria. The article has recently gone through a peer review. Theleftorium 21:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment A fascinating and very well written account. It is possibly over-cited (can there be such a thing on Wikipedia?!), the cites are breaking the flow and readability. I believe that they should be placed after punctuation marks. I note that your first language is not English, well done again, there are some phrases that need simple editing to straighten out. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Excellent account of a remarkable experience. I raised numerous points at peer review, all of which were properly addressed, and have done some copyediting here and there. Maybe a few more tweaks advisable, but nothing obvious. Good work. Brianboulton (talk) 09:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for the time being. The first sentence needs to be rewritten in order to state why this person has a wiki article. It appears to me that her fame is dependent not upon her work, but upon her survival. If that is the case, then that is the subject of the first sentence. Amandajm (talk) 11:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have boldly reworded the first paragraph, to meet your objection and also to comply with WP:LEAD. Brianboulton (talk) 14:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's good now! Amandajm (talk) 10:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you still oppose the article, or can you cross over your vote? Theleftorium 15:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
  • Sveriges Television, do they brodcast in Swedish? So the shows referenced from there would be in Swedish? Please not that on the references (Yes, it's picky... but...)
  • I have another concern in that this appears to be mostly about the actual close to death experience and not the actual woman. Shouldn't it be titled something other than just her name? Right now I'm getting WP:Coatrack concerns here. Granted, it's not anything horrid, but surely we can find a title that better expresses the fact that almost the entire article is about her near-death experience.
    • Yeah, I agree. I don't know what name to use though. Do you have any suggestions? Theleftorium 20:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe someone else will... If I'd had one I'd have suggested it ... Ealdgyth - Talk 20:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review - All images check out. Awadewit (talk) 02:54, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Going well! In the first paragrph it says that she awoke on the 30th May but there is no indication of what day the accident occurred. It might be a good thing to state that she was in a coma/unconscious state for ten days, just to make it clear. It's the intro. Grab the reader with very direct language.
    • I've made a small adjustment to the sentence now. Theleftorium 15:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, semi-colons are much abused on Wikipedia and often used in places where statements are hardly linked at all, or would be better linked to the preceding or following sentence. Where two statements are closely linked, or follow directly in time sequence, there is often a more meaningful way of joining them by using a simple conjunction (and, but) or turning one statement into a clause of the other (if, because, when etc). Amandajm (talk) 02:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I removed one semicolon here. Do you think it is better now? Theleftorium 15:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regretfully oppose. Fine article, but some details need correcting before it can be promoted.
    • "the lowest survived body temperature ever recorded in a human" in the intro is not strictly correct. Humans can survive lower temperatures when on a heart-lung machine and such temperatures have sometimes been used in extremely complicated thoracic surgery, IIRC.
      • I've not been able to find a source for that. Do you think you could take a look? Theleftorium 13:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • My information may well be from some textbook that I once read, but I'll try to find an online source. Kosebamse (talk)
        • This article is certainly not the best source but may do for a start, the authors mention temperatures as low as 10 degrees Celsius in sections A2 and C1; the literature referenced in these sections will certainly give more details. Kosebamse (talk)
          • Great, but how do I incorporate that into the article without using original synthesis? Should I put it in a footnote? Theleftorium 15:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Or do I have to change the text to "the lowest survived body temperature ever recorded in a human with accidental hypothermia"? Theleftorium 15:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Both, I'd suggest. Put "accidental" in the text, and mention in a footnote that lower hypothermia is used, and survived, in cardiopulmonary bypass. And use the article I mentioned as a reference for that, it's good enough for that purpose. How's that? Kosebamse (talk)
    • Clinical death, linked to more than once, is a diffuse layman's term to describe heart arrest. As the article is largely about an incident of heart arrest, a more accurate term should be used.
    • "Nerve damage in her hands and feet" (also mentioned later in the article) is similarly diffuse. First, nerve injury is as such overly broad, and second, "in her hands and feet" is unclear. Nerve injury related symptoms that are localized in the hands and feet can arise from injury anywhere between the central nervous system and the peripheral nerve. Therefore it should either be made clear that the symptoms are localized there, or the localization of the actual injury be described.
      • Would "late in 2009 she was still suffering from minor nerve damage localized in her hands and feet" be better (I'm not sure if I understood your comment)? Theleftorium 13:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • My comment may have been unclear, the point being that the symptoms, not necessarily the nerve injury itself, were localized there. Perhaps one should use a phrasing like "symptoms in hands and feet related to nerve injury". Kosebamse (talk)
    • "began giving her cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) in an attempt to regain her pulse" is technically a bit incorrect. A patient in deep hypothermia can not regain a circulation of his/her own until rewarmed and CPR in such a patient is only a bridge to rewarming or heart-lung machine. Any circulation, including pulse, in such a patient is a result of CPR, and one would rather not describe it as "regain" because that seems to imply the patients own cardiac activity.
      • done Removed the "in an attempt to regain her pulse" part. Theleftorium 12:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Bågenholm's lungs collapsed at 02:20" is very unclear. Please avoid such ambiguous layman's terms. The lungs of a patient on a ventilator do not simply "collapse". Either she had a pneumothorax, sometimes described as lung collapse, but then that should be described, or some other pulmonary condition, but that would also need details.
      • The source does not mention which kind of "lung collapse" it is. I changed the sentence to "Bågenholm's lungs stopped working properly at 02:20"; is that an improvement or should I just remove the sentence completely? Theleftorium 12:47, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • That would be better but still a bit diffuse, because after a drowning accident there will always be a degree of lung dysfunction, and without access to the medical details it does not make much sense to single out a specific point in time. Why not just say that her "lung function deteriorated" or something like that? Kosebamse (talk)
    • "Bågenholm's metabolism slowed down to ten percent of "its baseline rate"". I assume that refers to basal metabolic rate? Link please.
    • "Bågenholm's case and the cases of others who have survived extreme hypothermia have, according to The Sydney Morning Herald, "informed modern medicine to such an extent that cooling patients is emerging as a way". The Sydney Morning Herald may not be overly well informed here. The theory that hypothermia can be used as a therapeutic measure in the conditions named has been discussed before the case described here. Some in-depth discussion might be indicated. The statement as such is misleading.
      • This review treats therapeutic hypothermia and shows that the interest for this treatment has existed for quite a while. Here's another one. Kosebamse (talk)
        • Should I just remove this part then? Theleftorium 16:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't know. The sentence in its current shape is misleading. There are pieces of information throughout the article that hint at hypothermia and its medical aspects. Perhaps one could pull them together and make it two, three sentences with a few links to hypothermia, therapeutic hypothermia, and cardiopulmonary bypass, and a few references, saying that hypothermia is dangerous but can be survived, is used in extreme form in cardiopulmonary bypass, can be beneficial under certain circumstances, and should be treated according to guidelines (see article I linked at the bottom fo this page). Just an idea. Kosebamse (talk)
            • Take a look at the first paragraph in the "Aftermath" section again. Do you think that is good enough? I don't want to go into too much detail. Theleftorium 17:27, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article on the whole is drastically over-referenced which makes it ugly to read. Please consider cutting the links by half. Please don't succumb to the inline citation police.
    • Unless I missed it, there do not seem to be references from medical sources. As it is mentioned that the case was widely discussed in the medical sciences, it would certainly be in order to quote a few medical journals or textbooks. Newspapers all to often have it totally wrong when it comes to medical facts. Kosebamse (talk) 10:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are two medical sources in the article right now (ref 13 and 15). I'll try to add more. Theleftorium 14:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • This could help illustrate the medical perspective, the Bågenholm case is briefly mentioned. I do think that the original report (Gilbert M, Busund R, Skagseth A, Nilsen PA, Solb. JP. Resuscitation from accidental hypothermia of 13.7°C with cardiac arrest. Lancet 2000;355:375-6) should be included as well, but am unsure if there is a free online source for it; it is by the way mentioned in the first named article. Kosebamse (talk)
          • I have now added all the medical journals I could find to the article. Theleftorium 18:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • ...after a skiing accident in 1999 left her trapped under a layer of ice for 80 minutes in freezing water. May be just my personal preference, but I would also say about how thick the ice was.
    • I'm not sure how to add that without making the sentence too long. Any suggestions? Theleftorium 19:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...a doctor at the Narvik Hospital who was about to celebrate his retirement with a party in May 1999. I think that it should say May 20, because this is the first mention of the date, instead of vice versa.
  • A rescue helicopter soon arrived and Bågenholm was brought to the Tromsø University Hospital in an hour. Well since a couple of lines of the article were already spent on the specific helicopter, I think it's safe to say "The rescue helicopter".

Wow, very nice article. Prose is very very good. I'm almost jelous :P ResMar 18:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. :) Theleftorium 19:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • On first glance, the article appears overcited, and it's unclear if WP:MEDRS has been taken into account (the popular press can be used to cite some medical facts, but is notoriously inaccurate for most medical facts). Considering issues remaining to be resolved raised by other reviewers, I'm going to archive this for now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm perfectly fine with that, but can you wait until the other reviewers have responded to my comments? Theleftorium 19:56, 22 November 2009 (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/Anna_Bågenholm/archive1&oldid=1146682303"