Talk:Gabor B. Racz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography / Science and Academia (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the science and academia work group (marked as Low-importance).
 
WikiProject Medicine (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Society and Medicine task force (marked as Mid-importance).
 
WikiProject United States / Texas (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Texas (marked as Mid-importance).
 
WikiProject Hungary (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hungary, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hungary on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Good article Gabor B. Racz has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Gabor B. Racz/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Bluerasberry (talk ยท contribs) 15:01, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


The lead says, he "developed what became known as the Racz procedure for epidural lysis of adhesions". This statement does not appear in the body of the article, and I would expect this. Please provide a source which backs the idea that the Racz procedure is a procedure for epidural lysis of adhesions. Looking more at the lead, there are no sources which say he is recognized as chairman emeritus and the body of the article says he was a director of pain services, not co-director. Could sources be identified for every statement in the lead? I know Wikipedia has mixed instructions about citations in the lead but for good articles, I think it is worthwhile to have every fact presented backed with a citation, especially if the fact does not appear with a citation in the body of the article.

I am looking at the "Racz catheter and procedure" and procedure section. It says this -

In 1989, he developed the "Racz procedure" โ€” a treatment for patients with chronic low back pain caused by scar tissue due to previous surgeries, protruding or herniated disks, fractures, or degeneration that has not responded to other treatments.[12][13] This procedure was assigned a Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code in 2000.[14]

Can you please confirm which of these sources actually uses the term "Racz procedure"? One is self-authored, so I presume that one does not use this term. I did a keyword search of 14, and did not see the word "Racz". I cannot access sources 12 or 13, so I do not know what they say. I think it would be worthwhile to describe the procedure here, especially since it is mentioned in the lead.

The images being used in the article need categorization. Probably they could be called "Gabor B. Racz" and put in some category like Anesthesiologists in the United States.

The text says, "Racz was the first recipient of the Grover E. Murray Professorship, TTHUSC's highest award, in 1996". I checked the source, and it contains no editorializing. The "TTHUSC's highest award" should be cut or backed with a source since it seems to be WP:OR.

I think this is a start. Thanks for all the work on this biography. It is an orderly article and well presented. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:01, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Bluerasberry all the information you mentioned was included in the article prior to the "reassessment". It was removed despite protests. This is the pre-stripped version. There were only a few copyedits that needed to be performed, and some updates to higher quality sources. It could have easily been fixed instead of putting the article through a full reassessment, and stripping it of nearly half the information. Atsme๐Ÿ“ž๐Ÿ“ง 01:17, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
PS - hopefully, the author of the InTech bio will update their information so we can cite that source regarding his birthplace. I sent an email requesting verification, and suggested updating the InTech bio. The other option is to remove Budapest and simply say he was born in Hungary. I get the sense that Racz never even gave such information a second thought prior to my creating his BLP on WP. He appears to be a very busy man and has spent a lifetime tending to far more important things. ๐Ÿ˜Š Atsme๐Ÿ“ž๐Ÿ“ง 01:25, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
If no source is identified talking about place of birth then that can be removed. Wikipedia is supposed to cover what sources say, not seek information which has not been published. I am not sure how to reconcile what information has been removed. Even more can be removed, I think. If information is not backed by reliable sources then I would favor its removal. Ping me if I should look at something. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:04, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I removed Budapest because I could not find a source online. It may be in a bio in one of his books but until I find a source we can cite, I'll just leave it out.
  • Re: removing more information from this BLP - I was thinking more on the lines of adding more to it. See the following article: [1]. The Racz BLP is about a notable academic (over 2800 citations, H-index 29.00, G-index >50) and world renowned doctor who is now in his late 70s. His life's work is also notable with great EV. It isn't often that newspapers write articles about mainstream doctors - they usually have to be exceptional doctors which explains the article on Racz.added 08:21, 31 January 2016 (UTC) I think this BLP could be expanded to meet the criteria required of FA candidates, don't you? His notability was easily established per Wikipedia:Notability_(academics) wherein it states (my underline): {{xt|An article's assertion that the subject passes this guideline is not sufficient. Every topic on Wikipedia must have sources that comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability. For instance, major awards listed must be confirmed, claims of impact in the field need to be substantiated by independent statements, reviews, citation metrics, library holdings, etc. (see below for specific notes), and so on. However, once the facts establishing the passage of one or more of the notability criteria above have been verified through independent sources, non-independent sources, such as official institutional and professional sources, are widely accepted as reliable sourcing for routine, uncontroversial details.
  • Re: the Racz procedure you mentioned above actually does appear in the body of the article under the section Racz catheter and procedure" but they failed to include the medical terminology "adhesiolysis or epidural lysis of adhesions". I have corrected it so you can mark that one off your list. The editors who descended on this article made quite a few unnecessary changes and disrupted the flow of the prose like what you pointed out about the body not mentioning what's in the lede. I thought I fixed all the bumbling but a few slipped through the cracks, so thank you for catching them. You're a good reviewer. The term Racz procedure is synonymous with adhesiolysis or epidural lysis of adhesions, and both are ubiquitous in medical circles, and particularly in pain clinics. I added another source, "Percutaneous adhesiolysis is also called the Racz procedure, after Gabor Racz, M.D., who developed it." and both sources you named above also mention it.
  • Re: add citations in the lede. Done.
  • Re: TTUHSC highest award, I cited the Budapest Times again.
  • Think that covers it. Atsme๐Ÿ“ž๐Ÿ“ง 04:34, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Bluerasberry, I addressed your concerns, made some final tweaks, added more sources and now it's ready for your seal of approval. Atsme๐Ÿ“ž๐Ÿ“ง 02:50, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Primary sources through OTRS[edit]

See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_123#RfC_-_should_we_allow_primary_sources_sent_in_to_OTRS. There was some discussion about whether information about place of birth could be reported throught OTRS then put into the article. This discussion is not a rule, but it is recent thought on the matter. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:29, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Understood, and thank you Bluerasberry for pointing that out. I removed Budapest from the article two days ago, and I've made some tweaks and added citations to accommodate your concerns above, so it's ready for you to complete the review. Atsme๐Ÿ“ž๐Ÿ“ง 21:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Publications and recognition[edit]

Click on the "PUBLICATIONS" section and there is a lot of fertile ground. "Gabor B. Racz Publications". SpineUniverse. Retrieved January 29, 2016.  7&6=thirteen (โ˜Ž) 16:55, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Gabor B. Racz/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Montanabw (talk ยท contribs) 08:18, 28 February 2016 (UTC)


Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well written:
1a. the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct.
1b. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. See below for issues
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. See below for comment on Selected works section
2b. all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living personsโ€”science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines. See below, would like to see citations closer to what they cite, not just piled up at the end of the sentence or paragraph
2c. it contains no original research.
2d. it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism. Earwig bot flags it a little high. Some phrases clearly not an issue ("acting director of pain services" you gotta call the job what it is), but I see a wee bit of close paraphrasing you might want to work on, nothing serious. Just compare the examples and see if you can rephrase things. The bot flags direct quotes, which you don't need to change, just give it's red flags a look-see
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. Could be expanded a bit
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. See comments below
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:
6a. images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content. All are OTRS compliant
6b. images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Suggest captioning the images in article body as "Racz" not full name; also remove forced sizes (250px, 200px) as this can cause odd results in some browsers (removing fixed widths causes images to scale to default sizes. If they need to be big for some reason, use the "upright" parameter because then they will scale no matter what preferences a user sets)follow up I tweaked the captions to show what I had in mind, and tossed the fixed sizes. If you can do the same thing better, go ahead. Maybe now move them around a bit, perhaps see how it would look if one were left-aligned.
7. Overall assessment.


Comments: Overall, this is an interesting biography. See template above for wikignoming suggestions

  • Expand the lead, should have about two paragraphs summarizing the article for a GA. (Add a bit about his early years, etc.)
    • โœ“ Done 01:39, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Ideally, all material in lede should be repeated in body text and can be sourced there...the bit about board certification might have to stay reffed in the lead because it's not mentioned elsewhere, but the stuff on the Racz catheter mostly is...
    • โœ“ Done - actually it is cited in the body but it was previously explained to me that anything having to do with the medical community required MEDRS and/or high quality sources after almost every sentence including in the lead, which I've done. Atsme๐Ÿ“ž๐Ÿ“ง 02:38, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
      • See below (MTBW
  • Overall, I'd like to see the article expanded a bit, I saw the previous version was longer, and I think that there is some of that material that can be restored, though carefully, particularly on what the Racz catheter is and how it is used. The old article's section on the Racz Catheter procedure would need more sourcing, but it was a good start...if the jargon could be linked or reduced and the sourcing confined to MEDRS-compliant articles. That Budapest Times has some interesting material, like how his brother died of diptheria and that he grew up poor because his parents refused to join the Communist Party. His help from the McWhinneys could be restored too.**โœ“ Done - added sourced info per your suggestion, except for the medical procedures which I did not include because it actually belongs in a separate medical article rather than in this BLP which identifies him as the "developer". Atsme๐Ÿ“ž๐Ÿ“ง 02:38, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I'd like to see more wikilinking of complex medical words (or even partial linking if full concept is not written up yet). Examples: catheter, adhesiolysis, epidural lysis, adhesions, radiofrequency thermocoagulation ... etc... no clue what most of that stuff is.
    • โœ“ Done - not all have articles. I red linked a couple so it's on my "to-do" list for future articles. Atsme๐Ÿ“ž๐Ÿ“ง 04:28, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • This link isn't loading: [2], I'd also suggest that rather than piling three cites at the end of that long sentence, put them with the bits they support, i.e. [3] verifies "often misunderstood and misdiagnosed" but doesn't mention Racz... keeps citation a bit clearer for future editors to find what came from where. ??? Not sure what link or what citation. Perhaps I've already inadvertently fixed it but if not, let me know. 20:49, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Maybe explain more about what is unique about the Racz catheter -- or if you did, clarify... and what it does -- when I think "catheter" I think of draining urine -- this is way different ... the refs say it is an epidural catheter used in performing neurolytic blocks --as a reader I am curious about that. Hopefully a medical editor can create the Racz catheter article someday. My experiences in the last GAR and the comments that were made tell us to not define the procedure or how the catheter is used. Apologies, but I cringe when I read the archived info where I was wrongfully accused of a COI but it's bygones now. I've accommodated what I believed to be GF criticisms (none of which warranted a complete GAR), particularly about medical procedures. Perhaps some day the article can be expanded as a potential FAC and at that point inclusion of medical procedures can be discussed among Proj Med editors who know far more about such procedures than the average reader needs to know. 21:17, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • "Dr. Racz is widely published in many forms" -- kind of puffery, perhaps just say something like "Racz's publications are..." Just keep that neutral, boring, "encyclopedic" tone going (we learn to like it...) Well, the problem is that only his books are listed, not any of the numerous journal articles, papers or reviews he has written. FYI - during the GAR, a decision was made to delete the list of his works to include only his books. I can't remember who did it at the time or who stated that he is widely published in many forms but it actually coincides with his "h" and "g" indexing on Google Scholar. 20:49, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
    • I tweaked it directly to show you what I meant. If you can do it better, go for it. How many articles were we talking? All peer-reviewed journals? Montanabw(talk)
  • I'd split "Career and Awards" into two different sections, perhaps putting the awards farther down in the article. You could perhaps restore the bit on the Messer-Racz International Pain Center being named after him. โœ“ Looks done 20:49, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Not sure if useful, but found this review of his book. May be useful for minor expansion. โœ“ 20:49, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Selected Works should utilize {{cite book}} โœ“ 20:49, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

All for now, may add more. When in doubt, just source up the wazoo. Montanabw(talk) 08:55, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Follow up:

  • I did some different linking to the redlinked stuff just to show where my head was going. I found this article which explains things pretty well. It isn't a MEDRS compliant source, but it helped me understand it better.
  • You really don't need to have ANY footnotes in the lead if the same material is sourced in the body. You pretty much want to source nearly every sentence in a MEDRS-related article, but if multiple sentences have the same source, you don't have to keep repeating it (if people whine, I insert a hidden text note explaining how much the source covers. But every "fact" must be sourced, that is true. (MTBW)
  • You DON'T need to double up so many citations. "Racz was born in Hungary" does not require three citations, it needs one. But nice expansion of the early life section, it gives a better sense of what shaped him.
  • I'm going to make a few gnoming edits for you to show you some of the ways to work with the citations. (I focused on the history bit because I've done a lot of biographies but not a lot of medical stuff...)

All for now. Montanabw(talk) 05:54, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

    • I created epidural lysis of adhesions to better define the procedure and wikilinked to it rather than 3 separate articles. (I'm still working on that article but it shouldn't effect this GAR). I tweaked some of the syntax, and added a couple of new citations that were more recent regarding the medical info. I removed the multiple sources for his place of birth. I'm pretty sure it's ready to go now. Atsme๐Ÿ“ž๐Ÿ“ง 17:19, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Question - the way Doc James worded it before was "as an advancement in lysis of adhesions, a procedure used.."; therefore, it could be said that he developed "epidural lysis of adhesions" (no preceding "an") which is the treatment, or go back to "he developed the Racz procedure, an advancement in lysis of adhesions". Which do you like best? Atsme๐Ÿ“ž๐Ÿ“ง 01:20, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Are the two terms synonymous? (I can't find any place that uses the phrase other than at the beginning of a sentence, other than here and they aren't native speakers of English. If so, I'm OK if you pitch "an" -- the medical terminology is a bit dense for me to wade though, but I'm trying! Montanabw(talk) 04:33, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Found these: "Injection target sites for epidural lysis of adhesion"; "The lysis of adhesions procedure may also be referred to as the Racz ..."; "noted that studies of epidural lysis of adhesions are"; I'll pitch it. Atsme๐Ÿ“ž๐Ÿ“ง 06:46, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Hey, I'm back now. Overall, what I'm looking for is a little more plain English, so while Doc's explanation may have been precise and accurate, and that IS important, it's also a bit jargon-y for a non-medical person such as myself. I like "the Racz procedure, an advancement in lysis of adhesions" -- with all the right words linked... the epidural part is important too, though but that is the method of administration, correct? A phrasing along the lines of "the Racz procedure utilized epidural administration of (whatever), which was an advancement in lysis of adhesions... " or whatever you can justify and source. Basically, accurate, but in plain enough English that you don't have to be a M.D. to read it.  ;-) Montanabw(talk) 06:04, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Howdy hey, Montanabw! Glad you're back. Per your suggestions, I made the necessary tweaks to the lead - described the procedure so even I can understand it while still keeping it "encyclopedic". Added a good PubMed ref. Also, notice the wikilink to the procedure epidural lysis of adhesions if you haven't already. Atsme๐Ÿ“ž๐Ÿ“ง 23:45, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
PS - I'm now working on the body, making some improvements here and there to better corroborate the lead. Atsme๐Ÿ“ž๐Ÿ“ง 01:36, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Done. Hit me again, Sam!! *lol* Atsme๐Ÿ“ž๐Ÿ“ง 02:37, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Good article Your changes have been very helpful; the article is both thoroughly sourced but also understandable in plain English to the non-medical reader. It clearly meets the GA standard and I am now passing it. Congratulations! Montanabw(talk) 21:49, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoroughness and the time you invested in this review. It is much appreciated. Atsme๐Ÿ“ž๐Ÿ“ง 03:29, 13 March 2016 (UTC)