Talk:Drowning/Archive 2

Queen's University Student Editing Initiative
Hello, we are a group of medical students from Queen's University. We are working to improve this article over the next month and will be posting our planned changes on this talk page. We look forward to working with the existing Wikipedia medical editing community to improve this article and share evidence. We welcome feedback and suggestions as we learn to edit. Thank you. MMotamed (talk) 18:13, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi and welcome from WikiProject Med. You will usually get a quick response to general medical or wiki-based questions at the project talk page, but this is the best place to post questions about improving the drowning article. You should also take the time to look through the talk page archives as many questions may already have answers there. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 18:36, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * User:MMotamed nothing posted here. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 19:33, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * User:MMotamed nothing posted here. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 19:33, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Proposed edits

 * Hello again, we are the group of medical students editing this page as part of our class assignment. We have compiled a list of suggestions to improve this article and would appreciate community feedback before we proceed with these edits. Here is a list of our suggestions:

1. We propose to insert the following content into section 3.3 Cold Water Immersion. “Submersion into cold water can induce cardiac arrhythmias (abnormal heart rates) in healthy individuals, sometimes causing strong swimmers to drown. The physiological effects caused by the diving reflex conflict with the body’s cold shock response, which includes a gasp and uncontrollable hyperventilation leading to aspiration of water. While breath-holding triggers a slower heart rate, cold shock activates tachycardia, an increase in heart rate. It is thought that this conflict of these nervous system responses may account for the arrhythmias of cold water submersion.

Our proposed paragraph and references can be found in the following sandbox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cmcgrathqueens/sandbox
 * Thanks for posting this on the talk page. Minor adjustments made to your sandbox JenOttawa (talk) 02:09, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

2. We additionally propose to add the following into the same section, “Upon submersion into cold water, remaining calm and preventing loss of body heat is paramount.3 While awaiting rescue, swimming or treading water should be limited to conserve energy and the person should attempt to remove as much of the body from the water as possible; attaching oneself to a buoyant object can improve the chance of survival should unconsciousness occur.

Our proposed sentences and references can be found in the following sandbox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cmcgrathqueens/sandbox
 * Thanks for posting this on the talk page. Minor adjustments made to your sandboxJenOttawa (talk) 02:09, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

3. We propose to insert the following content into section 3.2 Water aspiration. “Although once considered a major factor in drowning physiology, drowning-induced electrolyte imbalance rarely occurs and is of little clinical importance. Disruptions in serum electrolytes are quickly corrected by liquid redistribution within the body. While it is possible for acute kidney failure to occur due to rupturing of red blood cells and subsequent hemoglobin in the urine, kidney function normally remains unaffected in a drowning episode. When kidney failure can occur, it is usually due to hypoxemia, shock, or hypothermia.

Our proposed sentences and references can be found in the following sandbox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MMotamed/sandbox
 * Thanks for your work to improve the article. Comments and adjustments in sandbox. JenOttawa (talk) 02:09, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

4. We also propose to add the following into the Water Aspiration paragraph: “Of people who have survived drowning, almost one third will experience complications such as acute lung injury (ALI) or acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). 1 ALI/ARDS can be triggered by pneumonia, sepsis and water aspiration and are life-threatening disorders that can result in death if not treated promptly.1 During drowning, aspirated water enters the lung tissues, causes a reduction in alveolar surfactant, obstructs ventilation and triggers a release of inflammatory mediators which ultimately results in hypoxia. Once someone has reached definitive care, supportive care strategies such as mechanical ventilation can help to reduce the complications of ALI/ARDS.” As well as the following change in the same section: I would remove the third and fourth paragraphs where the page mentions the differences between fresh and salt water drowning and I would insert the following: “Whether a person drowns in fresh water versus salt water makes no difference in the respiratory management or the outcome of the patient.Victims who drown in fresh water may experience worse hypoxemia early in their treatment, however, this initial difference is short-lived and the management of both fresh water and salt water drowning victims is essentially the same.”

The reference for these statements can be found on the following sandbox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mdschoolmom/sandbox
 * Thanks for summarizing your change here. Good work responding to your sandbox comments already. JenOttawa (talk) 02:09, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

5. We propose to insert the following into and make modifications to the third paragraph of the “First Aid” section: “Treatment for hypothermia may also be necessary. Previously, it was thought that maintaining post-cardiac arrest patients in a hypothermic state (32°C - 36°C) would result in better survival outcomes. However, according to the 2015 American Heart Association guidelines, targeted temperature management is advised against in the pre-hospital environment due to risk of further harm with no significant proven benefits. However, in those who are unconscious, it is recommended their temperature not be increased above 34 degrees C. As well, the following addition is proposed for the end of the first paragraph of the “Medical Care” section: “Targeted temperature management between 32°C - 36°C for at least 24 hours is indicated in comatose drowning patients post-cardiac arrest if return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) has been achieved (Class I, LOE B-R for VF/pVT OHCA; Class I, LOE C-EO for non-VF/pVT (ie, “nonshockable”) and in-hospital cardiac arrest). This is important to improve neurological recovery.

The reference for these adjustments can be found on the following sandbox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Snleung/sandbox
 * Thanks for sharing this. I added a comment and one wikilink to your sandbox. JenOttawa (talk) 02:09, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

6. To "Risk Factors" section, add the following: “World-wide, people with epilepsy are more likely to die due to accidents such as drowning. However, this risk is especially elevated in low- and middle-income countries compared to high-income countries.” “Alcohol increases the risk for drowning across developed and developing nations. In fact, alcohol is involved in approximately 50% of fatal drownings, and 35% of non-fatal drownings.”

The references for these adjustments can be found on the following sandbox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Anon-queens-med/sandbox
 * Edits made to your sandbox. Please double check if you are copying and pasting. I removed "in fact", for example. This looks good so far. Thanks for sharing your proposed article improvement. JenOttawa (talk) 02:09, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

7. To “Water Aspiration” section, add the following: Aspirated water that reaches the alveoli destroys the pulmonary surfactant. Upon reaching the alveoli, hypotonic liquid found in fresh water dilutes pulmonary surfactant, destroying the substance. Comparatively, aspiration of hypertonic seawater draws liquid from the plasma into the alveoli and similarly causes damage to surfactant and disrupts the alveolar-capillary membrane. Still, there is no clinical difference between salt and freshwater drowning.
 * Thanks for posting this. For this suggestion can you add a few Wikilinks to medical terms? There are no references above and I cannot find this in your sandbox. Thanks again!JenOttawa (talk) 02:09, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

The references for these adjustments can be found on the following sandbox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lvnbstlfe/sandbox
 * Thanks for posting here. You have a different sentence in your sandbox: "Many alleged cases of dry drowning are reported annually, but each has been found to have a recognized medical source that has a legitimate medically recognized diagnosis (which dry and secondary drowning are not considered to be)." I posted a few suggestions related to this sentence.

8. To “Medical Care” section, add the following: “Cases of drowning where oxygenation saturation levels are normal do not require supplementary oxygenation or respiratory support. They should be observed at the hospital for a few hours, for delayed complications, and if stable and well oxygenating, they should be released with education.” “If the victim has poor oxygen saturation or in acute respiratory distress[NW1], care should be started with supplementary oxygen to maintain a target saturation of 94-98%. Advanced airway management may be needed if condition continues to deteriorate. […] Core body temperature should be measured, and if hypothermic (core temperature <35°C), they must be treated.”

The references for these adjustments can be found on the following sandbox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:CARL_the_real_MVP/sandbox
 * Comments left in your sandbox. JenOttawa (talk) 02:09, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! We welcome any suggestions/comments! Lvnbstlfe (talk) 01:08, 16 November 2018 (UTC)


 * At this point, having got some exposure through your sandbox, and if you feel that your statements are all adequately cited, and given that your changes would appear to be sensible and well considered, I would just post the whole lot in one go, now. Not many people will read your multiple sandboxes and give you feedback, many will read your edits to the page itself and will no doubt react to it. Be bold, be very considerate and a little thick skinned, brace yourself for changes and adverse comments and just do it. None of it would appear to be grounds for reverting, I suspect that most or all of will stand. If your content is wrong it will be corrected fairly shortly. Good luck and well done in your efforts to contribute to Wikipedia. And when you have posted it say so here so that editing activity will shift to the page itself. E x nihil (talk) : Ex nihil (talk) 08:15, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Dispute of rescue section
User:Conciseman offered some criticism of the Rescue section, but put it in a hidden HTML comment in the article, which even a serious reader of the article would never see. I've replaced it with clear Missing information and Disputed section templates, and repeat their feedback here:


 * Absolute garbage of a section. Not only does it use some mangled form of English, but it also just plainly misrepresents the practice of rescuing, at least because it plainly fails to mention that such thing as an 'instinctive drowning response' exists, let alone that it is almost always present. So sticking some pole into the face of a drowning person is hardly going to do them any good. Section also fails to mention how very real are your chances to die while trying to save someone who is already drowning. This needs to be scrapped completely and redone from scratch.

--Lord Belbury (talk) 10:44, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 September 2020 and 18 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mendesjh20.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:51, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

On the grammar and style of the article: perhaps it's time for some radical change?
I'm going through and fixing more of the egregious grammatical errors I can find. As I read through the article I'm finding more and more that:
 * Topics and ideas are repeated unnecessarily.
 * The structure of many sentences is unnatural, when I read them out loud I find they are missing important pauses that make sentences more friendly.
 * It's incredibly dense. I've never thought about editing an article on a medical condition before, but are they usually this overwhelming?
 * so. many. bullet points.

in reading Ce I notice that under the section on style it says: Surely this must apply to non-medical articles?
 * "Avoid affected, pompous, or excessive language, e.g. "due to the fact that" for "because", "ascertain the location of" for "find", and (in almost all cases) "utilize" for "use".
 * Check articles for unnecessary words and redundant phrases. Vigorous, effective writing is clear and concise. See Plain English."

Anyway, I don't want to rewrite the entire article because I don't think it's my place to do so, especially as a relatively new editor. I'd like to hear other peoples thoughts on what I mentioned above so I can know if I'm jumping the gun. --Coyopelly (talk) 20:35, 28 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Welcome, Coyopelly! Constructive, considered edits should generally be welcomed on Wikipedia. Definitely, grammatical and stylistic improvements like those you describe may properly be made by anyone competent in the language. Likewise, organizing existing content may be performed by anyone who is, well, organized, and who has presumably first reviewed the existing article for its overall structure and flow. I would advise that you make fewer changes per edit, so that it's easier for other editors to gauge what you've done. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:50, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * More generally, you may want to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia principles by clicking "show" to the right of "show/hide Welcome templates" on my Talk page (click here) and don't be intimidated; it will become clear. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:50, 28 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your advice, RCraig09 ! As I am in the middle of editing right now, may I ask generally what should be done in one edit? Should it be section by section, or grouping similar edits together? By that I mean making one edit handle spelling mistakes (perhaps only for a section or two?) and making a sentence rewrite a different edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coyopelly (talk • contribs) 21:06, 28 September 2020 (UTC)


 * There's no hard and fast rule, as far as I know. Common sense judgment should rule. My perception is that, the closer something is to the substantive content of the article, the more narrowly focused an edit should be. Conversely, if it's just spelling or grammar, larger-scale edits, and shorter edit summaries, are not likely to cause issues. —RCraig09 (talk) 21:23, 28 September 2020 (UTC)


 * It's definitely awkward to read. Ronan.Iroha (talk) 11:48, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

The article is still in poor shape, which is particularly bad for a level-5 vital Health article, classed as High Importance for emergency medicine.

Copyedit/cleanup templates were removed from this article in December 2020 under the concern (which I agreed with at the time) that "these templates are causing problems by attracting incompetent edits", most of which seemed to be non-fluent English speakers pasting the article into some kind of automated grammar checker, and accepting all suggestions. It was never entirely clear why this article in particular was attracting that level of engagement, it may have been a misguided educational drive asking students to fix up articles from some list or category in a way that implied automated, non-fluent corrections were helpful.

In the hope that whatever it was has now passed, and to acknowledge to the reader that what they're about to read has problems, I'll try re-adding those templates. --Lord Belbury (talk) 19:55, 15 July 2022 (UTC)