Talk:Slipping rib syndrome

Untitled section

Hi there! @86.169.96.61 I saw you recently edited the SRS page and I wanted to talk to you about the change you made in terms of the congenital deformity in the causes section. The paper cited did not have any mention of a cervical rib, it only mentioned that it was a congenital deformity that allows the rib to slip whenever coming in contact with another rib. --Eswong3 (talk) 21:26, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Fine Eswong3 (sorry about that :).

Given the sourcing of statements with more than one source in ==Causes==, I feel it might be a good moment just to alert you and Jebbles to the general need on Wikipedia to avoid any WP:SYNTH (a key element in the Wikipedia policy of preventing so-called "original research" by editors from creeping into articles).

Put simply, we always need to make sure that multiple sources are saying basically the same thing (perhaps with slightly different detail). If the statement is uncontroversial, sometimes it may be worth considering sourcing it with just the most pertinent publication (though you may opt to leave several, either for additional support, or because you feel the multiple sourcing is itself potentially informative for some readers). Or if, for instance, only one of the cited sources regarding athletes happens to specify "swimmers", it may be good to move that particular source to the specific content it's supporting (i.e. swimmers,^ref). Another option (though probably not necessary here :) can be to be to split a sentence into two or more separate sentences, each providing specific information.

Hoping this is useful going forward, 86.174.206.11 (talk) 11:33, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Everything you've provided is useful! I will definitely read up more on the SYNTH and adjust this area, I'll definitely do a big ol' review of everything tomorrow to ensure everything meets the SYNTH guidelines. Jebbles (talk) 19:31, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

No worries Jebbles. It was just for your information (because it's a particular requirement of Wikipedia, which might not be altogether obvious :). 86.174.206.11 (talk) 20:58, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

@86.174.206.11 No problem! I've done a review of the section you specifically mentioned and I see no issue in my preliminary findings. We will definitely make sure to do a full and thorough review of the entire article. --Eswong3 (talk) 21:43, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Slipping rib syndrome/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dracophyllum (talk · contribs) 03:50, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Review

I'm happy to do this review, comments to follow Dracophyllum 03:50, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

1) Images are freely licensed and have good succinct captions

2) No edit warring as far as I can tell

3) Earwig turns up nothing

4) Sources are all reliable

5) sections typical of a med article, and it goes into sufficient depth, though see comments below

Some prose comments @TheRibinator:

• "both unilateral or bilateral" what does this mean?

 Done -TheRibinator (talk) 12:15, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Length of symptomatology" is overly technical, could just be, "symptoms can take from minutes to hours to appear," or something.

 Done -TheRibinator (talk) 12:15, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

• Remove all the citations in the lede except the ones for statistics/numbers

 Done -TheRibinator (talk) 04:11, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

• "as a result of subluxation" a bracket like (partial dislocation) would be useful here, though I see it is in the lede too. You could maybe just not use the word subluxation in the lede, unless it connotes something more specific than partial dislocation. Overall this point doesn't matter too much.

@Dracophyllum: I can see where you're coming from but in my mind partial dislocation doesn't meld in with most sentences. I think as long as we keep the (partial dislocation) in the lead, it should be fine. Do we need to add another (partial dislocation) to the section you mentioned? -TheRibinator (talk) 04:45, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

@TheRibinator Nah it's fine Dracophyllum 05:05, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

• "insidious onset" what does that mean?

 Done Insidious -> gradual -TheRibinator (talk) 12:40, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

• "presence of a congenital deformity," birth defect is the phrase most people will understand so change it to that

 Done -TheRibinator (talk) 12:43, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

• "hypermobility" change to double-jointedness as this is common phrase

@Dracophyllum: Though it is the more common term, I find double-jointedness to be a very misleading term as it is not actually two joints in the place of one. If you still believe it is important to put the common term there, I am more than willing. -TheRibinator (talk) 12:02, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

• clarify anterior with (upwards) or the relevant direction

 Done -TheRibinator (talk) 14:48, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

• "visual subluxation" what is the diff between this and subluxation?

 Done -TheRibinator (talk) 17:36, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

• "excision" seems overly jargony, just say removal.

 Done -TheRibinator (talk) 16:50, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

• delink last subluxation

 Done -TheRibinator (talk) 04:42, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

• "thorax" > chest

@Dracophyllum: It appears that the instances where chest is used, it is more appropriate than thoracic. Are there any specific instances you're referring to? -TheRibinator (talk) 21:38, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

• The only major issue is there is lots of information only in the lede, such as stats and history. The success rates or relevant info could go in a Prognosis or Epidemiology section. You really do need something, even small, about the history. Who described it, when, what in, what from, and then some subsequent developments. This would solve the issue.

 Done Added epidemiology and history, open to suggestions for both new sections. -TheRibinator (talk) 03:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

So things to work on = making it easier for people with no subject area understanding to get, and a little more info on things like history etc. Dracophyllum 11:14, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

• @TheRibinator: Before I pass this, could you reword ambiguous language (like "studies have shown") in the Epidemiology section with phrases like "one 1980 study" and stuff like that? Dracophyllum 05:24, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done -TheRibinator (talk) 12:28, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

• Also you make out that the 2021 paper differs to the 1980 one, but in fact the citation for that line in the 2021 paper is the 1980 one... Dracophyllum 05:55, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

@Dracophyllum: I don’t quite understand what you mean. The first line of epidemiology states that SRS is frequently overlooked in which I cited Beltsios and the 2020 literature. The line following lists the statistic from the 1980 paper and then cites it. Could you clarify? -TheRibinator (talk) 12:28, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

@Dracophyllum: I see what you mean now, you were referring to Beltsios. In the introduction of the Beltsios article, it mentions the 1980 study as a source. It mentions the same stats that are mentioned in the 1980 article to talk about the prevalence of the condition. While it is separate to the 1980 study, it uses it as a source and I cited it to justify that the 1980 research is still relavent in modern day despite its creation being decades ago. -TheRibinator (talk) 17:14, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

• @TheRibinator: I think this article meets GA now, congrats. Dracophyllum 02:37, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Hansen Method

Hi there @Cowarddd:. I saw your recent edit adding the Hansen method and wanted to leave a courtesy note discussing it instead of just removing it. I myself and @Jebbles: have both had the Hansen method done and we have considered heavily adding it to the article. However, in accordance with WP:MEDMOS and WP:MEDRS, the paper published by Hansen is a primary source. For us to add it to the article and be reliable, there must be secondary sources on the method.

--TheRibinator 🔔 05:39, 23 February 2023 (UTC)