Talk:Gabor B. Racz/GA2

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

Reviewer: Bluerasberry (talk · contribs) 15:01, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

The lead says, he "developed what became known as the Racz procedure for epidural lysis of adhesions". This statement does not appear in the body of the article, and I would expect this. Please provide a source which backs the idea that the Racz procedure is a procedure for epidural lysis of adhesions. Looking more at the lead, there are no sources which say he is recognized as chairman emeritus and the body of the article says he was a director of pain services, not co-director. Could sources be identified for every statement in the lead? I know Wikipedia has mixed instructions about citations in the lead but for good articles, I think it is worthwhile to have every fact presented backed with a citation, especially if the fact does not appear with a citation in the body of the article.

I am looking at the "Racz catheter and procedure" and procedure section. It says this -

Can you please confirm which of these sources actually uses the term "Racz procedure"? One is self-authored, so I presume that one does not use this term. I did a keyword search of 14, and did not see the word "Racz". I cannot access sources 12 or 13, so I do not know what they say. I think it would be worthwhile to describe the procedure here, especially since it is mentioned in the lead.

The images being used in the article need categorization. Probably they could be called "Gabor B. Racz" and put in some category like Anesthesiologists in the United States.

The text says, "Racz was the first recipient of the Grover E. Murray Professorship, TTHUSC's highest award, in 1996". I checked the source, and it contains no editorializing. The "TTHUSC's highest award" should be cut or backed with a source since it seems to be WP:OR.

I think this is a start. Thanks for all the work on this biography. It is an orderly article and well presented.  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  15:01, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


 * all the information you mentioned was included in the article prior to the "reassessment". It was removed despite protests.  This is the pre-stripped version.  There were only a few copyedits that needed to be performed, and some updates to higher quality sources.  It could have easily been fixed instead of putting the article through a full reassessment, and stripping it of nearly half the information. Atsme 📞📧 01:17, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * PS - hopefully, the author of the InTech bio will update their information so we can cite that source regarding his birthplace. I sent an email requesting verification, and suggested updating the InTech bio.  The other option is to remove Budapest and simply say he was born in Hungary.  I get the sense that Racz never even gave such information a second thought prior to my creating his BLP on WP.  He appears to be a very busy man and has spent a lifetime tending to far more important things. 😊 Atsme 📞📧 01:25, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If no source is identified talking about place of birth then that can be removed. Wikipedia is supposed to cover what sources say, not seek information which has not been published. I am not sure how to reconcile what information has been removed. Even more can be removed, I think. If information is not backed by reliable sources then I would favor its removal. Ping me if I should look at something.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  00:04, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I removed Budapest because I could not find a source online. It may be in a bio in one of his books but until I find a source we can cite, I'll just leave it out.
 * Re: removing more information from this BLP - I was thinking more on the lines of adding more to it. See the following article: .  The Racz BLP is about a notable academic (over 2800 citations, H-index 29.00, G-index >50) and world renowned doctor who is now in his late 70s.  His life's work is also notable with great EV.  It isn't often that newspapers write articles about mainstream doctors - they usually have to be exceptional doctors which explains the article on Racz. added 08:21, 31 January 2016 (UTC)  I think this BLP could be expanded to meet the criteria required of FA candidates, don't you?  His notability was easily established per Notability_(academics) wherein it states (my underline): {{xt|An article's assertion that the subject passes this guideline is not sufficient. Every topic on Wikipedia must have sources that comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability. For instance, major awards listed must be confirmed, claims of impact in the field need to be substantiated by independent statements, reviews, citation metrics, library holdings, etc. (see below for specific notes), and so on. However, once the facts establishing the passage of one or more of the notability criteria above have been verified through independent sources, non-independent sources, such as official institutional and professional sources, are widely accepted as reliable sourcing for routine, uncontroversial details.
 * Re: the Racz procedure you mentioned above actually does appear in the body of the article under the section ''Racz catheter and procedure" but they failed to include the medical terminology "adhesiolysis or epidural lysis of adhesions". I have corrected it so you can mark that one off your list.  The editors who descended on this article made quite a few unnecessary changes and disrupted the flow of the prose like what you pointed out about the body not mentioning what's in the lede.  I thought I fixed all the bumbling but a few slipped through the cracks, so thank you for catching them.  You're a good reviewer.  The term Racz procedure is synonymous with adhesiolysis or epidural lysis of adhesions, and both are ubiquitous in medical circles, and particularly in pain clinics.  I added another source, "Percutaneous adhesiolysis is also called the Racz procedure, after Gabor Racz, M.D., who developed it." and both sources you named above also mention it.
 * Re: add citations in the lede. Done.
 * Re: TTUHSC highest award, I cited the Budapest Times again.
 * Think that covers it. Atsme 📞📧 04:34, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

, I addressed your concerns, made some final tweaks, added more sources and now it's ready for your seal of approval. Atsme 📞📧 02:50, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Primary sources through OTRS
See Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_123. There was some discussion about whether information about place of birth could be reported throught OTRS then put into the article. This discussion is not a rule, but it is recent thought on the matter.  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  17:29, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Understood, and thank you for pointing that out.  I removed Budapest from the article two days ago, and I've made some tweaks and added citations to accommodate your concerns above, so it's ready for you to complete the review. Atsme 📞📧 21:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)