Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/Catastrophic injury

< Template:Did you know nominations
Round symbols for illustrating comments about the DYK nomination The following is an archived discussion of Catastrophic injury's DYK nomination. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page; such as this archived nomination"s (talk) page, the nominated article's (talk) page, or the Did you knowDYK comment symbol (talk) page. Unless there is consensus to re-open the archived discussion here. No further edits should be made to this page. See the talk page guidelines for (more) information.

The result was: promoted by Allen3 talk 10:12, 15 March 2013 (UTC).

Catastrophic injury

edit
(
)
  • Comment: This is already a long article, and I plan to continue expanding it. Mindmatrix 19:10, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Created by Mindmatrix (talk). Self nom at 19:10, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Article created 17 January 2013 by Mindmatrix with about 18,348 characters of readable prose as of now. Very impressive indeed. I switched References and Notes per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout and added weblink to Google books preview missing from the article, in order to confirm the hook (above). Good to go However, more work is needed, see below. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 20:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
  • There are several problems with the article and the hook. The title of the article is Catastrophic injury, which implies a fairly broad scope, but the article seems to be focusing on sports-related injuries. furthermore, the focus seems to be on sports in the United States, ignoring other sports played elsewhere. The sentence "American football has the greatest incidence of catastrophic injury,[12] whereas cheerleading is associated with the greatest incidence of direct catastrophic injury[13] at both the interscholastic and intercollegiate levels." would correspond to the hook, but seems to be rather US-specific, but the hook seems to be making a rather blanket statement unsupported by the article or the sources. Alansohn (talk) 20:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
You're correct about that. Apparently, the catastrophic injury is a legal term (as I have just learned), defined by the American Medical Association. The article needs to reflect that. Sorry, Poeticbent talk 21:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, there is also a legal term catastrophic injury (about which I also intend to write an article). The definition is basically a superset of the one for this article, and likely should not be incorporated into this one other than to relate the two concepts (such as in the Response and Litigation sections). When the legal term article is created, we can disambiguate both (for example, to catastrophic injury (sport) and catastrophic injury (law)), but there's no need to disambiguate this article right now as no other article on WP currently exists about a subject with this name. Mindmatrix 22:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
The article focuses on sport injuries because that's where the bulk of the research (and peer-reviewed material) is, and that's the order in which I've been processing the references. (Moreover, the point of DYK is not to create a comprehensive article, but to create an interesting one with salient data. A comprehensive article on this subject would be well over 250kB, and will take a long time to get to that point.) There is some data for Australia, Canada, and the UK in the article, but most research is produced in the US, so data is skewed toward the US experience. (Non-English sources are another matter entirely.) Some jurisdictions and (sport-related) associations define the term differently, so I've been hesitant to add data for those jurisdictions to prevent inconsistency within the article. Eventually, I plan to create Catastrophic injury in X articles about each sport and activity to which it is relevant (eg - vehicular collisions), but that's a long-term project I'm not going to undertake yet. We can certainly change the hook, either to reflect that it is specific to the US, or to use any one of the other interesting facts from the article. Either is fine with me. Mindmatrix 22:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Are there no sports-related injuries in other sports, such as soccer or downhill skiing, which might be more prevalent outside the United States? There is a minor mention of workplace injuries in the UK, but isn't this a global problem that may well be a far greater source of catastrophic injury? Shouldn't there be more coverage of countries with less developed workplace and sports-related injury prevention, say in China, where the percentages of injury might be much higher than in the U.S.? The SAT and other tests often have you read a document and suggest a title for it, and as of now, the article should be titled Sports-related catastrophic injury in the United States, as I read it. If that were the focus then the article would meet the criteria and if the hook were changed to "that the leading causes of sports-related catastrophic injury in the United States are cheerleading and American football?" (or some variation thereof) then I would be supportive of approval, as i think that the fact that cheerleading is a major source of serious injury is one that would draw readers.. Alansohn (talk) 22:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
This is DYK, not GA or FA. I took this article from 0kB to 30kB (now over 47kB, maybe C-class article) in four days, and read through nearly 160 sources to do so (that's nearly 28 hours of reading). Yes, there are sources for other sports and activities, including those outside the US. There are thousands of books and research papers I have yet to read for potential incorporation into the article. It's a massive undertaking. (Aside: catastrophic injury (equestrian) is another potential article.) But the DYK rules do not require this; they only require a sourced article, not necessarily complete, that is less than five days old. (I do agree with all your concerns about content, I just don't think they apply to a DYK article, excepting the differing definition by the AMA.) Moreover, incomplete articles aren't renamed simply because they currently focus on one region; they require (eventual) expansion. This one should not be renamed to be US-specific, as there is already some data from other countries, or about sport, as it includes minor data about other activities. At any rate, I've expanded the article, which now contains other sports, several non-sport activities (snowmobiling, fishing, riding ATVs, porting) and regions (primarily Ontario), so the point is moot. I'll likely update the article again over the next few days, hopefully with non-North American, non-sport content. In the meantime, I've suggested a few alternate hooks. Mindmatrix 00:58, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I think, most issues have been addressed. I suggest adding to the opening paragraph that the Catastrophic injury is a definition used in law; that's a fact! You can write a different article about it later if you want... Good to go on ALT1. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 17:01, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Oops, I thought I had added that earlier as part of a larger edit. I'll include it in my next edit. Mindmatrix 18:05, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Comment on sourcing. This textbook is US centric and even though they do not specifically say "In the United States" this is implied. We should state it explicitly as our audience is global and these are not global stats. Otherwise source is fine. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:27, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Alright, thanks. I guess that means the original hook is not okay. ALT1 through 7 preferred, I've struck the original. Tick based on previous review. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  • In fact men's ice hockey has a higher risk than American football. So does my national sport lacrosse and gymnastics. [1] and this source would be deemed to be better. And when it comes to football it is just spinal injuries not all injuries. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:33, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Alright, withdrawing tick so nominator can see the feedback. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:37, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  • The source you linked says "the incidence of nonfatal, direct catastrophic injuries...is higher"; it doesn't seem to report data including fatalities. I'll check it over again when I get the chance. I'll probably also need to mention in the article the relationship between total cases, participation rate, incidence by participant, and incidence by population. Mindmatrix 01:08, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Other than the sources already included, and the source indicated above, I haven't found any sources (to which I have access) that have specific incidence data per participant for various sports. (I'm certain they exist, though.) One of the sources I've included (Karantanas, page 242) states that football has the "highest incidence of cervical spine injuries in the USA", then indicating that it is because of the "high rate of uptake" of the sport, so it looks like this is incidence per population, not per participant. I'll amend the article accordingly; is it necessary to amend the hook, which uses "frequent" instead of "incidence" or "incidence per population"? Mindmatrix 00:56, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Are you referring to Textbook of Traumatic Brain Injury or Textbook of Family Medicine (or both)? Mindmatrix 01:08, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  • As the article makes medical claims, I wanted an experienced Med editor to check this before we ran it on the main page. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:13, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I incorrectly indented my comment. It was meant as a reply to Doc James' statement "This textbook is US centric...", as I wasn't sure to which textbook he was referring. Mindmatrix 14:01, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  • The text used to support the DYK. It is still a good ref though. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:12, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  • OK, I'll check how I've presented data from that source. Mindmatrix 15:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I've updated all stats presented in the text to reflect the region to which they pertain (I think I've updated them all). I'll check the remaining issue about incidence in American football vis-a-vis the other sports mentioned above tomorrow. Mindmatrix 02:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
  • What's happening with this nomination? It's been two weeks since the last post. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • The last comment I made was on 8 February, five days before your comment. As I said, I no longer have access to pay-walled sources, and the only issue seems to be regarding incidence per population versus incidence per participant in an activity. (Football is highest for the former, but not the latter.) I don't think this is inconsistent with the original hook ("the leading sport-related causes...") or ALT1 ("...is most frequent..."). If these hooks aren't deemed acceptable, there are six more to choose from, or I could propose others. (However, I will update the article tomorrow to state which incidence data is being reported.) Mindmatrix 02:31, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • The sources seem to be more in line with MEDRS, and the alts are more specific about their locality. I prefer the canoeing one, but it's up to the promoter which one is selected. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:57, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I think the major difficulty with this DYK was the length of the article; this may be the longest one to appear here, and the many paywalled sources used makes reviewing it a pain the rump. Any hook chosen is fine by me. Mindmatrix 23:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Catastrophic_injury&oldid=1022060843"