Template:Did you know nominations/Intramuscular injection

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:31, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Intramuscular injection

(

)

~~... that before the mid-1900s, intramuscular injections were primarily performed by physicians?~~ Source: Nicoll LH, Hesby A (August 2002). "Intramuscular injection: An integrative research review and guideline for evidence-based practice". Applied Nursing Research. 15 (3): 149–162. doi:10.1053/apnr.2002.34142. PMID 12173166.

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Hamro Lok Sanskriti

Improved to Good Article status by Berchanhimez (talk). Self-nominated at 03:42, 29 November 2020 (UTC).

Beginning review. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 22:49, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

Cited:
Interesting: - You should probably add something like "by physicians rather than nurses" or something like that to show that it was different between then and current-day. Some people would not find it interesting because they might think that physicians are the ones who do it anyways. The source you linked says "Until the introduction ofantibiotics in the late 1940s, the administration ofmedications by the IM route was a skill that was al-most exclusively practiced by physicians". That would be interesting if you could incorporate that into the hook/article.

QPQ: Done.

Overall: See comment above. Everything else is good to go. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 23:01, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

How about any of the following? User:Bait30, apologies also for the delay - been a busy week for me and just now found time to work on this. Thanks. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:55, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

ALT0a: ... that before the introduction of antibiotics in the middle 20th century, intramuscular injections were primarily performed by physicians rather than nurses?
ALT1: ... that the introduction of antibiotics in the late 1940s led to physicians increasingly delegating the task of performing intramuscular injections to nurses?
ALT2: ... that intramuscular injections were primarily performed by physicians before the middle of the 20th century, when they were increasingly delegated to nurses in part due to the introduction of antibiotics?

I went ahead and added the antibiotics thing in the article since the hook-fact needs to be in the article. I think all three of these new hooks are good. Up to the prep builder to decide which one. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 05:57, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Both ALT0a and ALT2 are unclear because "mid-1900s" can mean the middle of 1900–1909 (decade) and the middle of 1900–1999 (century); I wasn't able to access the source to determine which. ALT1 is problematic because the article doesn't mention the late 1940s at all; the article would need to have that level of specificity. If I may suggest, the article should go with the unambiguous "middle of the 20th century" if "mid-1900s" is approximating the middle of the century. Bait30, can you (or Berchanhimez) please confirm that the source does specifically refer to the introduction of antibiotics as one of the reasons for the switch? It isn't enough to add the fact to the article; all hook facts must be in the source used for said fact. (I've struck the original hook due to the issue raised with it.) BlueMoonset (talk) 06:46, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

BlueMoonset, here's a quote from the source: Until the introduction of antibiotics in the late 1940s, the administration of medications by the IM route was a skill that was al-most exclusively practiced by physicians (Stokes,Beerman, & Ingraham, 1944)... In 1961, Zelman noted that nurses had essen-tially taken over the procedure of IM injection. - I think the unambiguous 20th century is good and I'll work on improving it in the article tomorrow - I'm late to bed as it is now. I can see if it is too close to "synth" to include antibiotic use as a "reason", and am open to suggestions to improve the hook wording to make it better. Regards -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 06:56, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

BlueMoonset, fixed in the article and hook alts, also going to suggest an alt based on a different fact in case it's decided a different fact would be better altogether. It's based on a quote from doi:10.1111/jocn.12824 - The vast majority of these are given for curative purposes with 20 therapeutic injections being administered for every vaccination given. Regards -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 04:16, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

ALT3: ... that it is estimated that 20 intramuscular injections are given for therapeutic purposes, such as administering medication, for every one given to administer a vaccine?

Reviewer needed for ALT3, since the other hooks are problematic. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:16, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Berchanhimez Referring to ALT3, is it "20 intramuscular injections" or "over 20" of them? I can't access the source and the article states "over 20". SL93 (talk) 02:32, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

@SL93: The source article says 20, not over 20. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 02:55, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Bait30 Okay. I removed the word "over" from the article. ALT3 is approved. SL93 (talk) 02:57, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I came by to promote ALT3. In the hook, do you mean 20 different injections? And in the article, 20 other injections or 20 types of injections? Thanks for clarifying. Yoninah (talk) 22:15, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
@Bait30: SL93 (talk) 22:17, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry for being AWOL - been very busy recently - I agree with the change madee by Bait30 and SL93. The TLDR of it is that the source claims a 20:1 ratio of IM injections for therapeutic uses (ex: shots of antibiotics, steroids, etc) to IM injections for vaccine administration (which is what most people associate with them). This is an interesting factoid to me, but I agree that it's complicated to phrase it well. I personally think ALT3 is the best phrasing, but maybe clarifications in the article are necessary? I'll try to ponder and pop back in, but I'm exceedingly busy right now IRL and may not have much time (or I may forget) so apologies in advance for how long this nomination has taken. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:09, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

@SL93: I suggest rephrasing the hook:

ALT3a: ... that it is estimated that for every vaccine given through intramuscular injection, 20 injections are given to administer drugs or other therapy?Yoninah (talk) 19:23, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Frankly, though, I think the hook is trying to make a point that laypeople might not care about. How about something short and sweet?
ALT4: ... that vaccines are commonly administered via intramuscular injection? Yoninah (talk) 19:26, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Yoninah I prefer ALT4 and I will approve it if Berchanhimez is fine with it. SL93 (talk) 21:32, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

SL93 I was hoping for something more "hooky" to draw more people into this, but if it's agreed that the 20:1 ratio is too problematic to make work then I'm fine with alt4. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:54, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

ALT4 is approved. SL93 (talk) 03:00, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Just seeing if someone can promote this hook since it was nominated over a month ago and neither Yoninah or I can promote it - pinging Cwmhiraeth and Amkgp. Thanks in advance. SL93 (talk) 20:24, 31 December 2020 (UTC)