Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tracheal intubation/archive1

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 21:43, 23 October 2010 [1].

Tracheal intubation

Tracheal intubation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): DiverDave (talk) 21:00, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it is finally ready, after having gone through the GAN and Peer review processes. DiverDave (talk) 21:00, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I cannot find any other link to this article, and I do not know how to use WebCite to re-establish the link, so I have simply removed the dead url link. DiverDave (talk) 21:56, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources query: Can you clarify the status of the "General references"? Some of these have specific citations to them, others do not. Would some of them be better described as "Further reading"? Brianboulton (talk) 00:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, and excellent observation. On 17 September 2010, I split out a large section of text, creating a subarticle: History of tracheal intubation. The two sources in question (Classen (2002) and Vilardell(2006)) are cited in the subarticle, but not this one. Accordingly, I have just removed them from the list of "General References". All the sources that remain are associated with specific inline citations. DiverDave (talk) 03:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I had started to do a detailed sources review, but Jimfbleak (below) posted first (that's fine by me), and he and Colin (review below) have identified some of the same points that I was noting. I agree that the long reference strings supporting single facts are inappropriate. There is a general tendency to over-cite; for example there are 26 citations in the second, short paragraph of the Laryngoscopes section. Also note that I had no difficulty opening 121, and 130 linked to the full page. Brianboulton (talk) 17:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed 52 of the original 190 sources, including nearly all of the primary sources (although I did actually consult most of these). I have removed most cases where multiple citations support a particular statement, retaining only those cases where it is useful to do so. DiverDave (talk) 18:32, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • cricothyrotomy, tracheotomy, RAE — why italics?
I have removed all italics, and substituted quotation marks in most cases for the first use of these terms. DiverDave (talk) 04:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • reliable (and most risky) — Isn't this a contradiction?
Perhaps there is a better way to phrase this. The idea I am attempting to convey to the reader is: Tracheotomy was for centuries considered the most reliable method of placing a tube in the windpipe, but patients were also likely to suffer a high incidence of morbidity and even mortality after undergoing this operation. DiverDave (talk) 04:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the controversial/confusing text DiverDave (talk) 03:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Laryngoscopy and non-surgical techniques — Section is very listy, almost every sentence begins In (year),
I agree; this needs to be fixed. Give me a little time.... DiverDave (talk) 04:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • O2 should be O2 throughout, I would have thought
I have replaced all instances of O2 with O2 DiverDave (talk) 04:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (FiO2) — what is Fi? PaCO2 — undefined
linked "FIO2" term, defined PaCO2 as arterial partial pressure of CO2 DiverDave (talk) 04:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • academia — no link and no gloss
Sorry, but I do not understand this comment DiverDave (talk) 04:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Oops, meant acidemia Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have linked the term "acidemia" DiverDave (talk) 21:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Complications. — Rather parochial, I don't believe there are no studies outside the US
Again, I do not understand this comment. In addition to the US, I have cited studies from Austria (von Goedecke et al), Netherlands (Van Heurn et al; Polderman et al), Spain (Añón et al), and Europe (European Resuscitation Council). How many countries need to be included to avoid parochialism? DiverDave (talk) 04:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Flickr upload bot image review tag": I do not know what this is, much less how to upload this. Can anyone help me with this? DiverDave (talk) 04:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In this, you'll see the green tick after the licence box confirming the copyright status at upload. The point is that the original photographer might change the tag later, so we need to know the status when it was added. i don't know how to do it either, but it's not a problem at present, I'll see if I can find someone to fix it. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not really a problem as it was uploaded to Commons by the Flickr user anyway, but I've added the template myself. J Milburn (talk) 09:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • It's not good practice to put retrieval dates on the on-line copies of real books or magazines, just web-only data needs the dates
I have removed accessdates for all sources accessible by hard-copy only DiverDave (talk) 04:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • journals, eg Saudi Med J, Anat Anz, should be spelt out in full
all journal titles are now spelled in full, no abbreviations used DiverDave (talk) 04:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you are listing major sources as General References, what's the point of repeating the full cite in references. eg, ref 65 could be "in Doherty (2010) 157–172"
Barash, Benumof, Doherty, Levitan and Miller (General References): citations have been abbreviated when repeated in Specific References section DiverDave (talk) 01:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • McGraw-Hill Medical — needs location
McGraw Hill Medical: location=New York DiverDave (talk) 04:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wayne, PA — please spell out states in full, we are not all American
I have disambiguated all cities, full spelling of Pennsylvania, etc. DiverDave (talk) 04:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • refs 5, 18, 19 pp for one page ref
all single-page cites are now p. (not pp.) DiverDave (talk) 04:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref 33 needs page numbers
I have added page numbers (pp. 99-132) and a url to reference #33 DiverDave (talk) 04:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*ref 100 and other link to Anesthesia & Analgesia, Anaesthesia etc. — dois do not lead to an abstract, just a sign-in page. If this is subscription only, should be stated. Similarly any other non-accessible abstracts.
added (subscription required) for sources where this is the case: completed task for all references DiverDave (talk) 01:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed all url links that only go to abstracts-all remaining linked titles go to full text article, mostly pdf files. DiverDave (talk) 03:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref 172 I would add "self-published"
added (self-published) to Hawking and Martins sources DiverDave (talk) 01:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've despammed EL
Thanks. I had included the spam at the suggestion of another reviewer. DiverDave (talk) 04:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will attend to all remaining items in red font ASAP. Have to get some sleep now.... DiverDave (talk) 04:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • more sources stuff I've started going through the links; I'm concerned how many apparent url links go at best to an abstract (which can be linked from the doi/pmid anyway) and at worse just to commercial pages offering to sell the publication without even an extract. I would only link to full text sources. This may take some time Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 1,4; neither the doi or url links go to an abstract, even if signed in. This is just a site trying to sell the publications, so I'd kill the links
these links open into "The Journal of Laryngology & Otology" site. If you then click on the PDF icon, a PDF file of the entire article will open. DiverDave (talk) 01:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please do not strike queries yourself. It's for the reviewer to decide It makes it difficult for me to keep track of what I am happy with, and what has been struck by you. I can't find the pdf link for these refs. Why not put the link to the pdf directly? If it is free, that should be possible. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that. This is my first time undergoing an FA review and was not aware I was violating a convention. I was just trying to find a way to keep track of what issues I have addressed (to my satisfaction), and which ones remain. This will not happen again. DiverDave (talk) 11:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed all url links that only go to abstracts-all remaining linked titles go to full text article, mostly pdf files. DiverDave (talk) 03:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref 3, 20; no text or abstract linked from url, kill the link
fixed DiverDave (talk) 01:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref 8 links only go to spam pages, please kill
fixed DiverDave (talk) 01:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref 9 correct link is this
fixed DiverDave (talk) 01:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*ref 27; link only goes to non-preview Google book page
link goes to fully searchable/readable Google book page DiverDave (talk) 02:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref 62; non-text link
removed link DiverDave (talk) 02:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref 112; shouldn't Eschmann be capped?
fixed DiverDave (talk) 01:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref 121; Why is Sheridan fully capped? Incidentally, couldn't get this to open
fixed DiverDave (talk) 01:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref 130 link goes to sign in page only
  • Oppose. Thanks for working on this important topic. It is clearly written by someone who knows their stuff. I haven't studied the references but superficially things look promising (though see below). However, I don't think this is FA yet, sorry. Here are some of my concerns.
  • Lead doesn't summarise the article. We have two lead paragraphs on history but some other sections don't appear at all. For example, the complications and likelihood of complications aren't covered by the lead. A lay reader will wonder what all the fuss is about and why anyone would have considered cutting a hole in one's throat to be a better technique than sticking a tube down one of nature's two already-made air passageways. Colin°Talk 16:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have rewritten the lead section. It now summarizes the article in 4 paragraphs:
  1. What is tracheal intubation, on whom is it performed, and why? What routes are available?
  2. What is the sequence of steps in tracheal intubation, and why? What equipment is used to perform it?
  3. History (tracheotomy used to be the only way to intubate, until nonsurgical methods were developed in the 19th century)
  4. Complications (it can be difficult, and it can result in serious complications if it is not performed correctly) DiverDave (talk) 21:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lead is much improved in this regard. Colin°Talk 22:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Too many citations. Some appear to be present for the purpose of supplying the seminal or historical work that introduced some discovery. This is not what Wikipedia references are for, though that practice is common in academic papers. If you feel that listing the historical works (particularly in the history section) is of encyclopaedic value, put it them in a Notes section (see ketogenic diet for an example). References are for sources that you consulted and which establish both the factual accuracy of the statement and also the weight given to the body text they support. Other times, there are multiple citations, in one string of numbers, for apparently single facts. Please find which of these is the best (preferably secondary source such as a review) and eliminate the others. Colin°Talk 16:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed 52 of the original 190 sources, including nearly all of the primary sources (although I did actually consult most of these). I have removed most cases where multiple citations support a particular statement, retaining only those cases where it is useful to do so. DiverDave (talk) 18:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Big improvement here. Just slightly concerned there may remain some primary sources in the history section that don't fully support (or best support) the text. For example, is the Galen statement citing commentary in the book or citing Galen's own words (which are in themselves unable to prove he "clarified the anatomy of the trachea and was the first to ...". Jackson's tracheotomy paper is unable to prove it "is used to this day". (also, wrt "to this day", see WP:DATED). The sentence beginning "Despite the many recorded instances of its use since antiquity" is probably unsourced as the next citation probably doesn't cover it. Can you find a review/history that makes this assertion? I'm unable to check them all but make sure that when we say "was the first" that that claim really is supported by the primary source. Using secondary sources often let us say more than just "X published a book describing Y". However, I should say that the History section has plenty examples here where secondary sources are used well for this purpose. Colin°Talk 22:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are quite a lot of facts that only an anaesthetist would love. I don't think the list of makes of laryngoscopes is of interest to many of Wikipedia's readers. Colin°Talk 16:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I can reword this section a bit. This is not merely a list of laryngoscope models. Rather, each of these devices represents a different approach to solving a fundamental problem of laryngoscopy—the need to see around the acute angle between the oropharynx and the glottis. DiverDave (talk) 03:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The history section begins abruptly with Tracheotomy. This procedure isn't defined in the lead so the reader will wonder why we spend three long paragraphs on this topic. More is needed up front on why modern tracheal intubation methods weren't used historically. Colin°Talk 16:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this important observation, which has led me to make extensive changes to the lead section. Tracheotomy is now mentioned, and linked, in the first paragraph of the lead section. The third paragraph of the lead now contains the following text:
For centuries, tracheotomy was considered the only reliable method for intubation of the trachea. However, because only a minority of patients survived the operation, physicians undertook tracheotomy only as a last resort, on moribund patients. It was not until the late 19th century however that advances in anatomy and physiology, as well an appreciation of the germ theory of disease, had improved the outcome of this operation to the point that it could be considered an acceptable treatment option. Also at that time, advances in endoscopic instrumentation had improved to such a degree that direct laryngoscopy had become a viable means to secure the airway by the non-surgical orotracheal route.
It should now be apparent to the reader that modern tracheal intubation methods weren't used historically because the instruments and devices necessary to accomplish it were not developed until the late 19th century, as now discussed in the third paragraph. DiverDave (talk) 04:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article isn't particularly engaging I'm afraid. Even the history section, which is often the most accessible and interesting to a lay reader, is mostly just a collection of facts in chronological order. What is the story you are trying to tell? Tell the story and eliminate the facts that aren't necessary to that story. Colin°Talk 16:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The text appears to be written for a medically trained reader. Gratuitous jargon includes mentum, epistaxis and adipose tissue to list just three. Another example: the distal and proximal terms used in the lead could easily be avoided. Other jargon will require more work to eliminate but blue links are not a solution. They supply a link for the reader wanting to learn more, not for the reader trying to understand the sentence. Every time a medical term is used, consider whether the lay reader really needs to know that term in order to understand the article topic. Can a lay description/word be used, with the medical one in parenthesis? The reader is not learning to become a physician. They just clicked on the main page article on Wikipedia, which is for the "general reader". Colin°Talk 16:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Achieving a balance between using precise terms (medical jargon) and imprecise ones (colloquial words) can of course be tricky. We certainly want the information to be accessible and understandable to the general reader (isn't that the whole point?), but we must not sacrifice accuracy or introduce any misleading information in trying to achieve this. I could really benefit from some assistance here, as I am admittedly a little blind to some of this. Anyway, I have made quite a few changes, including but not limited to:
  • There's some overlinking (e.g. disaster, wire, child, adult, human body). There are many links to articles on basic human anatomy a 3-year-old knows (head, teeth, etc). Colin°Talk 16:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have delinked: adults, anesthesia, children, critically, disasters, Egyptian, gases, human body, incisors, infant, malleable, mouth, nose, tablets, teeth, tongue, wire. DiverDave (talk) 04:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article would really benefit from more diagrams. There is only one, and it is quite far down the article. It would help the lay reader to see the tubes to the lungs and stomach and how insertion of a catheter might go down the wrong way. A diagram of the surgical methods would be good too. Colin°Talk 16:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have added two more diagrams. DiverDave (talk) 19:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With respect to the one diagram I have included: I have just improved the caption, enlarged the image, and moved it so that it appears immediately after the lead image in the article. DiverDave (talk) 05:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think the picture of the child with a massive ameloblastoma is necessary for this article. I'm sure this is a rare cause of difficulty; therefore the weight given to that cause doesn't justify the use of a shocking image. Colin°Talk 16:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The image is not intended to shock. While an ameloblastoma of this size is not a common cause of difficult airway management, many situations arise that present equal or greater degree of difficulty. I could easily substitute a less (or more) shocking image, but I felt that this image would convey the idea best. DiverDave (talk) 03:57, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with the earlier comment about "reliable (and most risky)" being confusing. It might have been a reliable means of obtaining an airway, but not a reliable means of keeping someone alive and well. Colin°Talk 16:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the controversial/confusing text DiverDave (talk) 04:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the record, WP:MEDMOS does not require journal names to be spelled out in full. This is an editor preference and it is only important that the article is consistent in this regard, and use standard abbreviations if abbreviations are used. Colin°Talk 16:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree it has that benefit and find the abbreviated form is often impenetrable, though I'm seldom that interested in the name of the journal anyway. But we can't mandate editors follow one citation style or another, as there is no consensus on WP for any citation style. BTW: I assume your comment on MEDMOS meant to say "free full text". Strictly-speaking, MEDMOS requests urls for free full text, but doesn't actually forbid urls for subscription-only text. Perhaps it should. We could suggest that over on that guideline? Colin°Talk 17:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would prefer that non-free journal articles were not linked at all, which is a widespread convention. The editor with a subscription can get to them via the DOI or the PMID so adding a third link isn't needed. It is very helpful to readers without journal access to be able to see, at a glance, that they won't be able to read the paper. The PMID link will give them access to the abstract.
I have removed all url links that only go to abstracts-all remaining linked titles go to full text article, mostly pdf files. DiverDave (talk) 03:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article title "Tracheal intubation" is a procedure, not the equipment used for the procedure or the special situations or complications. Shouldn't we have a section that describes the procedure in normal or common situations, in its various forms? Colin°Talk 16:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The normal or common situations in which intubation is performed are described in the Indications section, which I have just now completely rewritten. The Special situations section describes other circumstances under which intubation is performed. I do not see how we can describe a procedure without describing the equipment necessary to accomplish the procedure. DiverDave (talk) 00:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you make it clear why sticking the catheter down the wrong tube is fatal. What happens? Is it just that the airway is blocked, or does inflating the stomach do bad things? Colin°Talk 16:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the following text to the Complications section:
...unrecognized intubation of the esophagus, is...likely to result in a deleterious or even fatal outcome. In such cases, oxygen is inadvertently administered to the stomach, from where it cannot be taken up by the circulatory system, instead of the lungs. If this situation is not immediately identified and corrected, death will ensue from cerebral and cardiac anoxia.
DiverDave (talk) 21:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Colin, I would direct you to the article Miniopterus griveaudi, which isbased almost entirely on non-free content. The article made FA last week. The reason the cites were allowed was the lack of comparable free sources. Similar situations often occur in medical articles, so please consider this before citing that particular issue. Ronk01 talk 04:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand. I didn't say not to use non-free journal articles. Just to not link their URL via the article title. This is a very common convention, mentioned in MEDMOS. People use non-free sources all the time: books. Colin°Talk 05:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Source link for lead image is dead; pre-modern tracheotomy image is lacking source information and date; need author death date for Bouchut image to confirm PD-old; patent used as source for diagram should be checked for copyright notice (I can't seem to access it).
I have replaced the lead image, alt text and caption DiverDave (talk) 01:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With respect to the Bouchut image: the authors of the book were Angelo Mariani (1838-1914) and Joseph Uzanne (unknown dates). The actual engraving was made by Henri Brauer (unknown dates). I can replace the image if necessary. DiverDave (talk) 03:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have just removed the Bouchut image and the pre-modern tracheotomy image. DiverDave (talk) 04:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is tube removal properly referred to as "tracheal extubation" or "extubation of the trachea"?
Either term is acceptable. DiverDave (talk) 03:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "most risky" -> "riskiest" (and I agree with the comments above about the seeming contradiction here)
I have removed the controversial/confusing text DiverDave (talk) 03:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By the late 19th century, advances in the sciences of anatomy and physiology... Also in the late 19th century, advances in..." - repetitive phrasing, and remove "the sciences of"
Fixed ("By the late 19th century, advances in anatomy and physiology.... Also at that time, advances in endoscopic instrumentation....") DiverDave (talk) 18:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "visualizing" has a different meaning to the non-specialist reader - suggest rewording or explaining
Fixed ("...facilitated by using a conventional laryngoscope, flexible fiberoptic bronchoscope or video laryngoscope to identify the glottis, though other devices....") DiverDave (talk) 18:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "described the use of tracheal intubation in The Canon of Medicine to facilitate breathing" - change sentence order for clarity
Fixed ("Ibn Sīnā (980–1037) described the use of tracheal intubation to facilitate breathing in 1025 in his 14-volume medical encyclopedia, The Canon of Medicine....") DiverDave (talk) 18:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "descriptions of", not "descriptions on"
fixed typo DiverDave (talk) 04:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a number of instances of repetitive phrasing and of overly wordy sentences
I do not doubt you, but can you give some examples? I am having difficulty finding and correcting these. DiverDave (talk) 03:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are the tracheostomy and tracheotomy the same thing? This should be made clear, or you should use only one term
Both terms are commonly used and should be used in this article. An -otomy refers to the making of an incision in an anatomical structure, while an -ostomy is the surgical creation of a "stoma", an opening which connects a body cavity with the external environment. The term -otomy typically implies an incision which is intended to be closed or repaired within a short time frame (minutes to weeks), while -ostomy implies the creation of a longer term or even permanent stoma. To my knowledge, there is no clear consensus on the precise distinction between the two terms, which are often used interchangeably in the literature. In the context of airway management in the acute setting, the operation is properly called a "tracheotomy", while the term "tracheostomy" refers to the stoma created by the operation. The tube that goes into the stoma is usually referred to as a "tracheostomy tube", but "tracheotomy tube" is also acceptable. DiverDave (talk) 18:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does one perform tracheotomy or perform a tracheotomy? Be consistent
fixed DiverDave (talk) 04:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where did Trousseau present his series? To what audience?
Armand Trousseau (1801–1867) presented a series of 169 tracheotomies to the Académie Impériale de Médecine. DiverDave (talk) 16:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Try to make your text reasonably accessible to a non-specialist reader; where this is not possible, provide wikilinks (what on earth is "esophagogastroduodenoscopy"?)
I have piped the link for esophagogastroduodenoscopy --> upper GI endoscopy. DiverDave (talk) 05:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "austere conditions" - wording
reworded sentence: "...useful in certain emergency situations, such as natural or man-made disasters." DiverDave (talk) 05:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but yet difficult" - redundant wording
fixed DiverDave (talk) 02:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 5: why is some information repeated?
fixed DiverDave (talk) 02:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No it isn't
OK, I believe it is finally fixed :) DiverDave (talk) 22:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you're going to include a retrieval date for some web versions of print-based sources, you must include it for all of them
As far as I can tell, I have included retrieval dates for all web-based sources DiverDave (talk) 02:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You've missed some - for example, refs 24 and 32
I think these are all fixed now. DiverDave (talk) 22:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do you say "subscription required" for some refs but not others? For example, ref 44 vs ref 50
"subscription required" tag has been added to all sources where subscription is required for viewing the article, and only those sources. DiverDave (talk) 02:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not true. For example, ref 44 requires a subscription to view, yet it is not so marked. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed all "subscription required" tags. DiverDave (talk) 22:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent of how the author/editor of the "main work" is listed (for example, "In Gerard M. Doherty" vs "In Miller, RD")
fixed DiverDave (talk) 02:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not fixed - the formatting is still inconsistent. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please be more specific; I am happy to fix but I cannot discern what you are looking for DiverDave (talk) 04:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To illustrate: "In Laurie J. Fundukian", "in Benumof", "in Doherty GM", "in Miller, RD". Each of these is formatted slightly differently, but should be formatted consistently (including punctuation). Nikkimaria (talk) 13:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 64: publisher location?
location = New York: McGraw-Hill Medical (see General References) DiverDave (talk) 02:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't include both categories and their subcategories
I thought I fixed this when I removed the category "Emergency medicine". What else should I remove? DiverDave (talk) 04:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anesthesia is a subcat of Surgery, Oral and maxillofacial surgery is a subcat of Surgery, Otolaryngoly is a subcat of Surgery...basically just remove Category:Surgery. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I have finally achieved consistency in formatting of the references. This was much harder than I thought it would be.... DiverDave (talk) 22:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest that you leave the striking to me - several of the strikes you performed were premature, as the issues had not yet been addressed. I've undone those. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that. This is my first time undergoing an FA review and was not aware I was violating a convention. I was just trying to find a way to keep track of what issues I have addressed (to my satisfaction), and which ones remain. This will not happen again. DiverDave (talk) 11:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No harm, no foul. Just as a general point, don't modify comments on project or talk pages. At FAC, the general convention is to wait for or ping reviewers to revisit, but it's perfectly understandable that you didn't know that. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At two weeks, this FAC is awfully long, no Supports, one Oppose, no feedback for nine days. I'm going to archive it, as a fresh start in a few weeks may give it a better shot at more review once Colin is satisfied. 21:42, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Tracheal_intubation/archive1&oldid=1138474095"