Talk:Gabor B. Racz

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Gabor B. Racz/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs) 08:50, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• I propose to take on this review and will make some detailed comments on the article in the next couple of days. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:50, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

First reading

• "He attended Semmelweis University Medical School in 1956 during the time of the Hungarian Revolution against Soviet occupation." - It would be better to say that he was attending the medical school at the time of the Soviet invasion.
• You should avoid the words "persecution" (NPOV) and "unexpected" (peacock) and just state the facts.
• Was he married to Enid at the time of the escape or did they marry later? The article implies the former.
• "He served as organizing Chairman of the Department of Anesthesiology at TTUHSC from 1977 to 1999," - This has already been stated at the beginning of the section and is repeated in paragraph 4.
• "The procedure involves the injection of a 3% phenol solution via the C7 approach under fluoroscopy." - This sentence is too jargon-laden.

In general the prose is of a high quality. My main concern is that the article reads as if it was written not by a neutral observer but by someone too close to the subject. That's all for now. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth - thank you for taking the time to review this article. Please rest assured, there is no closeness to the subject on my part. In fact, I have a much closer relationship to some of the fish I've written about. My responses to your list of concerns follows:

• • It would be better to say that he was attending the medical school at the time of the Soviet invasion. - Actually, it would not be correct because Hungary fell to Soviet occupation during World War II. See the FA, Hungarian Revolution of 1956, wherein it states that it "was a spontaneous nationwide revolt against the government of the Hungarian People's Republic and its Soviet-imposed policies."

It was the tense of the verb that I was referring to. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:32, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth - My apologies. I misunderstood your suggestion. Thank you for clarifying. ✅

• • You should avoid the words "persecution" (NPOV).... - After I read some of the resources about the revolution, and also, Hungarian Revolution of 1956, which included statements such as, "Thousands were arrested, tortured, tried, and imprisoned in concentration camps, deported to the east, or were executed,...", I felt "escaped persecution" was a well stated fact. I hope you will reconsider removal. I did remove "unexpected" per your suggestion.

As far as I could make out, he wasn't persecuted, but thought he was likely to be. I still see "unexpected" in the article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:32, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I see you're point. Hopefully, it is fixed now. I also added a couple of new inline citations to validate the change. Re: "unexpected" - I forgot to save the correction. Gotta remember to order some Prevagen. ✅

• • Was he married to Enid at the time of the escape.... - Article states..."a young Racz and his wife, Enid, escaped...", so yes, they were married. Is there a better way I could have phrased it?

I just thought that as she was only 17 at the time of the escape, they might have married subsequently. The point is unimportant. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:32, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

• • He served as organizing Chairman of the Department of Anesthesiology.... - I fixed it, and tightened up the prose a bit. ✅
  • The procedure involves the injection of a 3% phenol solution... - Fixed. ✅Atsme☯^Consult 03:47, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

GA criteria

• The article is well written and complies with MOS guidelines on prose and grammar, structure and layout.
• The article uses reliable third-party sources, and makes frequent citations to them. I do not believe it contains original research.
• The article covers the main aspects of the subject and remains focussed.
• The article is neutral.
• The article is stable.
• The images are relevant and have suitable captions and are properly licensed.

• Final assessment - I believe this article reaches the GA criteria. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:49, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

COI

Per box at the top of this page, an editor appears to have a COI with regard to the subject of this article. The article need to be reviewed for NPOV and sourcing. Once the article is cleaned by an independent editor, the tag can be removed. If you do that, please leave a note here. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:08, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

This is nothing short of harassment. Be prepared to go to ANI. Atsme^📞📧 23:09, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Atsme.2C_Earthwave.2C_WP:SELFCITE.2C_Gabor_B._Racz I won't be interacting with you further on this, except to reply once at these various talk pages. Jytdog (talk) 00:03, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Make that ARBCOM. Atsme^📞📧 03:38, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

CV

A few things in this article are sourced to source given as:

• Paula Brashear (March 31, 2008). "CURRICULUM VITAE Gabor B. Racz, M.D. Ch.B. DABPM, FIPP". TTUHSC International Pain Institute. Retrieved April 1, 2014.

But on inspection this looks like the subject's CV hosted on a make-your-own-magazine site. Is that right? Alexbrn (talk) 04:25, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

COI

User:Jytdog, I see you tagged this as COI. I think it's incumbent on you to explain that. It's not obvious to me why User:Atsme has a COI, and to add the tag without reason isn't WP:AGF Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:46, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

In the section above, I noted that the explanatory links are in the box at the top of this page (the "connected contributor" section at the bottom of box). I did explain. Jytdog (talk) 05:50, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

hm - the facebook link is now broken; she must have taken the post down. Well, it was there, and I saved a screencap is case that would be needed. It was on earthwave society's facebook page and it said: "Gabor B. Racz, M.D. - his Wikipedia biography is now complete" and had a link to this WP article. It was dated April 14, 2014. I've asked Atsme at COIN (linked in the COI section above) what the connection between Earthwave and Racz is. No answer to that yet. i'm kind of willing to assume that she was using that facebook page as more of a personal blog rather than as news relevant to the organization... but only kind of, in light of the undisclosed COI editing discussed in the COIN thread. Jytdog (talk) 05:52, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Jytdog, thanks for that. I have to say that I still have concerns that it looks like outing, and I'm not sure that it's a positive move given the history between some editors, including yourself, and this user (just stating a fact, not commenting on the rights and wrongs here). I think that there are some valid concerns with this article, although it was passed for GA by a an experienced independent editor, but the language issues at least are easily fixable. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:32, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Hey Jim. I thought carefully about the OUTING issues and I believe what I have done is in-bounds. I understand that others might think differently and am open to hearing about that. As I reckon you know, the reason across all institutions that people with a COI are obligated to disclose it, is so that reviewers/readers are aware that there might be bias or promotional goals. This article is pretty promotional and I don't reckon it will look much like it does now after WP:MED editors review it. I am not going to do that now, but will do it later when the dust settles from this, if others haven't done it first. And I very much hear you on the bad history between Atsme and me. I am trying (not very successfully) to stay out of this, now that I have raised it. Jytdog (talk) 06:40, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, I think there is a difference between claiming a COI and effectively outing an editor who denies at least a current COI. It looks worse when you tag a featured article like American paddlefish as COI. For the life of me, I cannot see how the claimed COI detracts from an FA article about a fish, which has been assessed at WP:FAC by many experienced editors. To tag everything User:Atsme has done as COI without clarifying how the claimed COI affects the veracity of the article looks like WP:POINT or settling scores. I invite you to reconsider which of the articles you have tagged are actually affected by the claimed COI, otherwise I'll remove the tags myself where it looks like bullying rather than being relevant. So far, I've only checked the fish, but that's such a poor decision, I think you should look at all those you believe have been adversely affected by the COI to check that that is really the case. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:05, 5 July 2015 (UTC)