Talk:Burn/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Zad68 (talk · contribs) 15:48, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Status = MEETS GA CRITERIA

 * On review...  19:45, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Did some today, mostly reviewed sourcing (the most important thing).   03:34, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Finished reviewing all sources. I've listed some concerns where I saw source not exactly represented accurately in article content.  Can you please go through the sourcing table and double-check where I've indicated with ❌ red X's.  After we get the article content in line with the sourcing then I'll go through and do a more thorough grammar and prose check.  Kicking it over to you, putting review in On Hold status.    19:21, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Updated GA worklist to reflect your latest round of changes.  03:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Last round of changes looked good, all sourcing issues resolved. Next will be reviewing prose.    19:49, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Doc, did a bunch of small changes, and made some requests to you below, a few for clarity, and asking you to add a bit of new content about home remedies especially butter and aloe, are they effective?
 * Use this diff to review my changes to the article since you last edited it
 * Use this diff to review new changes to this GA review and respond to any open items
 * 19:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Doc, literally one last thing about aloe vs. SSD to fix, see below.  14:02, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Done, meets GA criteria, nice work!   02:42, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Cause

 * There should be more about circumferential burns requiring further investigation into abuse or other intentional cause of the burn, usually an indicator for admission to hospital even if TBSA wouldn't normally call for it, I saw this mentioned in several sources but don't see it in the article.
 * Okay separated out non accidental to its own section and added further signs Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:28, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * (I renamed the section "Intentional")  15:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If someone injuries themselves during a bout of mental illness it is "non accidental" but it is not necessarily intentionally. Thus is also the wording sources use. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:04, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If that's how the hair is split, OK.   13:13, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Thermal

 * Bride burning is a form of domestic violence more common in India where a women is burned due to what the husband or his family considers to be an inadequate dowry. - this feels WP:UNDUE, sticks out like a sore thumb unconnected to anything, and I can think of more common and widespread intentional burns like cigarette burns as a form of abuse that are not mentioned, is this sentence really needed? If so it needs to be integrated better.
 * Burns are exceedingly common in Asia and the developing world generally. Bride burning is typically a much more significant injury than a cigarette burn. I will try to find more details and try to flesh this out a little. The difficulty is the medical literature is really US centric so I typically give a bit of leeway to content from the developing world. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:17, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Fireworks are a common cause burns during holiday seasons in many countries. - appears to be missing "of"
 * Fixed Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:17, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Radiation

 * Microwave burns are rare and primarily primarily occur via thermal heating - article content needs to brought in better harmony with source
 * ok now

Pathophysiology

 * The remaining blood becomes more concentrated and less in volume - clumsy and a bit unclear, is this meant: "There is significant blood loss, and the remaining blood becomes more concentrated" - it should also be explained which component of the blood is lost to make it more concentrated, it is just moisture?  plasma?
 * Loss of plasma. Adjusted wording Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:28, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Prevention

 * Regulation of fireworks appears to decrease the number of injuries caused by them. - Regarding Jeschke p. 46: Source actually appears to say opposite of article content
 * Source says "Presumably because of the proliferation of firework regulation the number of firework related injuries dropped" so I do not understand which bit states the opposite. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:31, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That particular sentence you mentioned isn't very definitive and is only talking about UK. In my evaluation, the actual conclusion is where the author says "The impact of legislation on the incidence of fireworks-related injuries is unclear."
 * Yes it is unclear but there is still tentative evidence of benefit. Added second ref. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:39, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * good now

Management

 * Sources appear to treat circumferential burns as special case due to circulation problems resulting from contraction, this should be covered more in depth.
 * on second review, it's covered adequately
 * As it has come up in several sources, article should make special mention of HF burns, and that they require Calcium gluconate.
 * Added Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:44, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Wound care

 * There is insufficient evidence to support the use of silver containing dressings.[41] Evidence for negative-pressure wound therapy is insufficient to determine its effect. - the bit about neg-pressure isn't exactly worded right, combine these two sentences to say there is insufficient evidence to support either
 * Agree and combined. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:30, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


 * If intact blisters are present, it is not clear what should be done with them. Some tentative evidence supports leaving them intact. - lead says Blisters should be left unbroken to reduce the likelihood of infection., make consistent
 * Done Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:06, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * fixed now


 * Please add a bit about common "home care" -- there are home-remedy recommendations to put butter or aloe or honey on sunburns or first degree burns, what does the best literature say about it?
 * Added a bit more. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:51, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, one final thing I'm having a hard time resolving, article states both:
 * Tentative evidence also supports the use of aloe vera[56] however it does not appear to be superior to silver sulfadiazine.
 * Silver sulfadiazine (a type of antibiotic) is not recommended as it potentially prolongs healing time.
 * This is sending a mixed message that aloe might work, but not any better than SSD, which is not recommended. I know, the sources are stating conflicting things, but can you please work this out in the article so that it's not self-contradictory.    13:28, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes the sources contradict each other. Adjusted and added the main conclusion that the overall quality of the evidence is poor. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:44, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * good now

Medications

 * During the healing process antihistamines, message, or transcutaneous nerve stimulation may be used to aid with itching.[6] Antihistamines however are only effective in 20% of people.[43] Tentative evidence supports the use of gabapentin - based on the sources, the last two sentences are talking about pruritis/itching but the article content does not make this clear enough, please make more clear what symptom Antihistamines and gabapentin are for - pain or itching?
 * Clarified. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:53, 10 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Intravenous antibiotics may improve survival in those with large and severe burns.[44] There is however concerns that it increases the risk of fungal infections and antibiotic resistance.[5] Due to the poor quality of the evidence, routine use is not recommended. - "There is however concerns" needs grammar fixed; check the meaning of the content against the source, prophylaxis is recommended perioperatively, does this need to be worked into the content?
 * Reworded. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:11, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * better now

Alternative medicine

 * Hyperbaric oxygenation may be useful in addition to traditional treatments - don't agree hyperbaric oxygen is "alternative medicine" or at least the source didn't say so, consider moving this elsewhere
 * Moved Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:33, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Hyperbaric oxygenation may be useful in addition to traditional treatments;[47] however, more research is needed to confirm or deny this.[48 - a 2004 Cochrane review is used to supplement a 2013 review article and make a statement about "more research is needed", if there's been more research since 2004 the 2013 review should have it, recommend removing the bit here sourced to the 2004 Cochrane
 * Yes agree 2004 is a little old. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:33, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Prognosis

 * In one large United States series of people admitted to burn centres on average 4% of people died[14] with a mortality of less than 1% in those with burn areas less than 10% TBSA and 85% in those with more than 90% TBSA burns. - sorry couldn't figure out what is meant here, please clarify
 * Done Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:36, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * better now after a bit more copyediting

Epidemiology

 * Overall nearly 60% of fatal burns occur in Southeast Asia with a rate of 11.6 per 100,000. In this region of the world fatal burns are twice as common in females as males. - This is surprising, can you include an explanation why?
 * Women cook over open flames on the floor while males work outside. India is the biggest country in this region. Discussed under the other epidemiology section. Clarified a bit and moved some content around. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:31, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * explained now

History

 * Needs expansion, four sentences isn't enough, there's more that should be added from Herndon's Total Burn Care Chapter 1, especially needs development of modern understanding and treatment (19th-20th century).
 * Added paragraph Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:45, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * New content covers it. But, nearly every sentence is passive voice.  It's acceptable for GA but should be fixed, will make note.    13:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)4
 * better now with less passive voice

Media

 * Appropriate, licenses look OK.

Sourcing

 * All sourcing issues resolved now, sourcing looks good!  19:48, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

In this table:
 * Source lists the source as cited in the article
 * Seems WP:RS? means, "Does this source appear to meet WP:RS for reliable sourcing?"
 * Use OK? means, is the source used appropriately in the article? For the review, a few selected sources will be spot-checked to ensure they aren't plagiarized and support the article content.   indicates the source was not spot-checked.
 * Notes will summarize problems found and what needs to be done to fix them

Post-GA suggestions

 * In general, I see some suboptimal sourcing to support content that should be very easy to support with better sources. It'd be nice to purge all the non-top tier sourcing used just one time to support stuff that should be sourced to up to date specialist textbooks.  It would well cut down on the number of sources used.  For these cases, what's used is good enough for GA but the article sourcing quality overall would improve if this were done.
 * Yes will update to total burn care 4th edition when it arrives. I am traveling right now so might be a little slow making these changes. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:35, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Nearly every sentence in History is passive voice, use more active voice.   13:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I guess I will need to figure out the difference between active and passive voice. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:49, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It's the difference between: "This was then expanded into 6 degrees by Guillaume Dupuytren in 1832." (passive voice) and "In 1832, Guillaume Dupuytren expanded it into 6 degrees." (active voice), or "The significance of the hypermetabolic state that follows large burns was realized in the 1970s." (passive voice) and "In the 1970s, researchers demonstrated the significance of the hypermetabolic state that follows large burns." (active voice)  Any time you use something like "was realized" or "was found" etc. without saying WHO realized or found, etc. you're using the passive voice.  Active voice is better, but is often harder to use, because we are most often interested in saying WHAT was found rather than WHO did it, and to use active voice you are often required to look up the WHO (unless you use a cop-out like I just did by saying "researchers" instead of naming them).    13:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks and added more active voice. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:51, 17 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Great article! Just a minor note: The lead section mentions, as causes, "heat, electricity, chemicals, friction, or radiation". That's the last time that friction is mentioned in the article, which seems a bit of a disconnect.-- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:05, 19 May 2013 (UTC)