Talk:International emergency medicine/GA2

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

Reviewer: Cryptic C62 (talk · contribs) 16:29, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

My overall impression: The research and sourcing in this article is top-notch, and it is clear that a lot of work has been put into it. However, the quality of prose leaves much to be desired, and there are some organizational issues that need to be addressed. Finally, I see some minor problems in the footnotes, but we can look at that later.


 * Organization


 * Where is the History section?
 * ✅ I've moved the History section from my sandbox into the article. You'll have to let me know what you think. AmericanLemming (talk) 21:51, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Solid. I'll leave prose comments below. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:18, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Where are the images? Ambulances, hospitals, medical professionals, medical schools, policy directors, etc.
 * ✅ Following your advice, I've now added 7 pictures to the article from Wikimedia Commons. All of them are public domain or Creative Common-licensed, so there's no problem there. However, the formatting could be improved, especially for the three co-alinged pictures at the bottom of the article. AmericanLemming (talk) 22:34, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * In my experience, the easiest approach is to find existing images in Wikimedia Commons, our file repository. Find an image you'd like to use, then find the licensing below the description. If the license says "creative commons" or "public domain", then it can be used freely. Picture tutorial can explain how to add the image to an article, and how the various parameters work. I've added one to the Developing countries section as an example; if you're not a fan of the image or its placement, feel free to revert. Does this help? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 12:52, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You've been quite helpful. I have removed the image, however, as ambulances are costly and often unsuited to the conditions present in many countries. (See the relevant section in the article.) But I have added some other images. AmericanLemming (talk) 22:42, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Good! If you haven't already, you may want to review WP:CAPTION for some tips on writing excellent captions. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:18, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The Emergency medicine in the developing world section starts by giving a detailed explanation of one specific subtopic, followed by "Emergency medical care may be applicable in many areas aside from traffic injuries" which returns to the the more general topic. This is a very unintuitive way of organizing this section. It leaves the reader thinking "Wait, what does this have to do with IEM?"
 * ✅ I've attempted to summarize the paragraph by adding a sentence to the beginning. AmericanLemming (talk) 06:59, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The first paragraph of Models of emergency care is far too large. It should be split or shortened.
 * ✅ AmericanLemming (talk) 20:49, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, the Emergency medicine in the developing world and Models of emergency care sections are not specifically about international emergency medicine. Perhaps these should become subsections of a top-level Background section. This could also include the Definition section.
 * ✅ AmericanLemming (talk) 20:53, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that the History section should be nested under Background, as the two serve different purposes. A Background section should provide the reader with content and context necessary to understand the topic. In most cases, it is not necessary to understand the History of a topic in order to understand the topic as it currently exists. However, as you are more familiar with the subject than I am, you might disagree with that last point.
 * I'm actually a bit of an outsider to this topic myself. My brother, Mjs15, rewrote the entire article last fall but hasn't been able to get it up to GA since then because he's too busy. Hence, that's where I come in. Anyway, when I first read the article myself, I was confused as to what IEM actually was, owing to the somewhat confusing nature of the Definition section. Having spent way too much time working on it, I know understand that, as the article says, "The most commonly accepted definition of international emergency medicine is that it is 'the area of emergency medicine concerned with the development of emergency medicine in other countries.'"
 * I guess what I'm getting at is that having the History section nested under Background reinforces the most commonly accepted definition and prevents the reader from being confused and asking, "So what exactly is IEM?" If you think that the average person can read the Definition section and understand what IEM is without needing reiteration from the History section, I would be open to moving it. AmericanLemming (talk) 00:56, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Prose comments


 * "The straightforward definition of international emergency medicine..." Why "straightforward"? Everything written on Wikipedia should be straightforward in its presentation. What is needed here is the most commonly accepted definition of IEM.
 * ✅ AmericanLemming (talk) 18:10, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "Included in those nations are some that are otherwise quite developed but lack a complete emergency medical system." Such as?
 * ✅ AmericanLemming (talk) 19:24, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "As the researchers Razzak and Kellermann identify" This phrase can and should be cut. The findings presented in this paragraph are obviously factual.
 * ✅ AmericanLemming (talk) 18:12, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "These are conditions that potentially threaten the lives of those who are afflicted by them and yet adequate and/or timely treatment may not be available for much of the world's population." Clunky phrasing which can be shortened. Try this: "These are potentially life-threatening conditions, and yet effective treatment is often unavailable for much of the world's population."
 * ✅ AmericanLemming (talk) 18:17, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "For instance, a 2008 study of anesthesia, intensive care medicine, emergency medicine, and pain therapy in Zambia published by the International Anesthesia Research Society found that only 50 percent of hospitals had an emergency medical system that transported patients." The finding has nothing to do with most of the study items listed. As such, the list should be shortened: "For instance, a 2008 study of medical systems in Zambia published by the International Anesthesia Research Society found that only 50 percent of hospitals had an emergency medical system that transported patients."
 * ✅ AmericanLemming (talk) 18:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "Of course, emergency medicine also improves public health..." Never use "of course". See MOS:OPED for details.
 * ✅ AmericanLemming (talk) 18:21, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "Simply put, the Anglo-American..." Cut "simply put". It does not improve the sentence in any way.
 * ✅ AmericanLemming (talk) 18:22, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I see an Anglo-American model and a Franco-German model. Does Asia not exist?
 * Well, yes, Asia does exists, but as far as I can tell there is no Asia model of emergency medicine. A quick search on PubMed and Google for "asia model" or "asian model" will give you nothing pertinent. Source 1 of the International emergency medicine article says that China, Hong Kong, Japan, the Philippines, South Korea, and Taiwan use the Anglo-American model, so I guess you could say that the Anglo-American model is the Asian model.
 * One method of clarifying this point would be to split the sentence in two, then highlight a few countries that use each model: The Anglo-American model (used in such countries as X, Y, and Z) relies on "bringing the patient to the hospital". The Franco-German model (used in such countries as ع, Ҩ, and פ) operates through "bringing the hospital to the patient." Another option would be to simply add a sentence later in the paragraph summarizing what you said above. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:33, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ AmericanLemming (talk) 03:03, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "The use of these descriptors for emergency medical systems has been criticized as an oversimplification and a needless source of controversy." A contentious claim such as this should be immediately followed by a citation.
 * ✅ AmericanLemming (talk) 22:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "For instance, a cost-benefit analysis found that creating an EMS system in Kuala Lumpur that met U.S. standards for cardiac arrest response ... would cost $2.5 million and only save four neurologically intact lives." Two problems: First, the symbol "$" is not enough to unambiguously identify the currency being used. Presumably this should read "US$2.5 million". See WP:CURRENCY for details. Second, four lives per what? Per year?
 * ✅ AmericanLemming (talk) 18:50, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "Elements of both of the major conventional models have been incorporated with the EMS system following French influences and being staffed by physicians while an American approach to emergency medical residency training is also present." Read this sentence out loud. Pause only when you see a comma or period. See the problem?
 * ✅ AmericanLemming (talk) 18:53, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "within many emergency medicine residences" Should this say "within many emergency medicine residencies"?
 * ✅ AmericanLemming (talk) 18:25, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "practiced-based learning" Presumably this should say "practice-based", which would make much more sense.
 * ✅ AmericanLemming (talk) 18:26, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "Indeed, the breadth of skills..." Cut "indeed". This is an encyclopedia article, not an essay for a college writing course.
 * ✅ AmericanLemming (talk) 18:28, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "Indeed, the breadth of skills needed in international emergency medicine make it unlikely that one standardized program could fulfill the training needs for all of the various future tasks in international emergency medicine." This can be shortened: "Indeed, the breadth of skills needed in international emergency medicine make it unlikely that one standardized program could fulfill the training needs for every scenario."
 * ✅ AmericanLemming (talk) 18:29, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "the primary topical areas" Do you mean "topic areas" or "topical areas"? The two have different meanings.
 * ✅ AmericanLemming (talk) 20:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "Such exchanges can work both ways, however, as the fact that 23 to 28 percent of all physicians in Australia, the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada received their training at international medical schools suggests." Yikes, this one is a doozy. How about this: "Such exchanges can be mutually beneficial; 23 to 28 percent of all physicians in Australia, the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada received their training at international medical schools."
 * ✅ AmericanLemming (talk) 18:32, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "They are attempting to establish effective systems" Unclear time reference. See WP:PRECISELANG.
 * Is that better?
 * "Given the relatively young nature of emergency medicine as a specialty globally, as of the mid-2000s there were only a few advanced emergency medical systems and a far greater number of nations (50+) that were in the process of developing those systems." I'm sorry, but I really don't understand what information this sentence is trying to convey. Think about the point that you were hoping to make here, imagine how you would relate it to someone verbally, and then write that instead.
 * Is that better? AmericanLemming (talk) 18:58, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see much of a difference. After rereading, I think I've isolated the problem: The sentence is of the form "Given X, Y" or more simply "X implies Y". However, X and Y appear to be equivalent, so the use of this construction just causes confusion. I suggest simply cutting out the first clause.
 * ✅ AmericanLemming (talk) 02:46, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * "The process of development has been described as usually beginning in academia and patient care before burgeoning out to administrative and economic concerns and finally health policy and agendas." The "has been described" construction makes this sentence really awkward. Also, burgeoning? Really? The goal is to convey information in a way that anyone can understand it. SAT vocab words should only be used when not suitable alternative can be found. Try this instead: "The process of development usually begins in academia and patient care, followed by administrative and economic concerns, and finally health policy and agendas."
 * ✅ AmericanLemming (talk) 18:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "Given the limited resources of many developing nations a vital part of how emergency medicine fits into the health system is how to fund it." I know you don't believe in commas, but they can really help. Also, avoid "how to", as it sounds like a how-to guide (seriously). "Given the limited resources of many developing nations, a vital part of how emergency medicine fits into the health system is how it is funded."
 * ✅ AmericanLemming (talk) 18:35, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "This is a particular problem for a nation like Zambia" The problem with the phrase "a nation like Zambia" is that is does not explicitly clarify which characteristic of the nation is relevant. Better: "This is a particular problem for poorer nations such as Zambia," Notice the comma. Believe in the commas.
 * ✅ AmericanLemming (talk) 18:37, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "Despite the myriad differences in the contexts of counties" This whole paragraph is in need of help, but before I try to dissect it, it is important for me to know this: is "counties" a typo for "countries"?
 * ✅ AmericanLemming (talk) 18:40, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I tweaked the phrasing a bit. You dig it? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:33, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that your phrasing is much clearer and more accessible than mine. The only thing I might change is removing the "may." I think it weakens the effect of the sentence. AmericanLemming (talk) 02:43, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * A fair point, done. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 12:52, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * (History) "Emergency medicine is a relatively young specialty that was first developed in the United States in the 1960s." Stating that it is "relatively young" is bad for two reasons: First, it's redundant, as the sentence gives a more precise timeframe later. Second, it does not employ precise language.
 * ✅ AmericanLemming (talk) 06:53, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


 * "it was the high number of traffic and other accident fatalities in the 1960s that spurred a white paper" Avoid the passive voice. Try this: "the high number of traffic and other accident fatalities in the 1960s spurred a white paper" see the difference?
 * ✅ AmericanLemming (talk) 06:56, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


 * "[various countries] followed suit shortly thereafter" Avoid colloquialisms, as they are unlikely to be understood by non-native readers.
 * ✅ AmericanLemming (talk) 07:04, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


 * "International emergency medicine conferences had been launched in the previous decade" It is entirely unclear what "the previous decade" refers to. 60s, 70s, or 80s? No idea.
 * ✅ AmericanLemming (talk) 07:05, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Err, I don't see any change. Perhaps an edit was dreamed? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:20, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Look at the last sentence of the paragraph. I believe it reads "International emergency medicine conferences had been launched in the 1980s, and national emergency medicine organizations began increasing their support for the development of the speciality in other countries." I think you might have missed it. If that's not what it says, though, do let me know. AmericanLemming (talk) 03:39, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, butts, my mistake. I was looking at a similar sentence a bit later on: "Moreover, several international emergency medicine conferences had been launched in the past decade". I'm not sure how I missed this earlier, but this sentence seems very redundant with the sentence highlighted above. I think the first instance of this sentence cloning could be removed, as it seems somewhat misplaced the (non-international) Emergency medicine section. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Is that better? AmericanLemming (talk) 04:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "By the early 1990s, the emergency medicine systems in these six countries were largely mature" The meaning of "these six countries" is clear if it is used in the same paragraph in which the countries were introduced. The meaning becomes less obvious if it is used in a different paragraph, and even less obvious if it is used in a different section. In particular, the first sentence of a section should give the reader enough context without forcing them to hunt upwards for missing information.
 * ✅ AmericanLemming (talk) 07:08, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


 * "leading some of the practitioners of emergency medicine in those countries "to turn their attention to developing the specialty in other countries." " Why does this sentence end with a direct quote? This is a pet peeve of mine. I am of the belief that direct quotes should only be used when there is a compelling reason to do so, and I can think of no reason that applies here.
 * ✅ I have attempted to paraphrase the quote. AmericanLemming (talk) 07:11, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


 * "international emergency medicine as a subspecialty was born" It wasn't born. It's not a mammal.
 * ✅ Hopefully I'll eventually learn to avoid using idioms and the like on Wikipedia. AmericanLemming (talk) 07:13, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


 * "There were several reasons for the heightened interest in developing emergency medicine in other countries. One was the example given by countries with mature emergency medical systems, particularly the United States and the United Kingdom." I don't follow this at all. How is the second sentence one of the several reasons referred to in the first sentence?
 * I think that I understand the reason for your confusion. The first sentence of that paragraph (if that's what your talking about, which I think you are) refers to the fact that since emergency medical systems were mature by the 1990s, the practitioners of emergency medicine in those countries were able to turn their attention from developing emergency medicine as a speciality in their respective countries to other countries. The second sentence, while still referring to the mature emergency medical systems in those countries, focuses on the fact that the demonstrated success of these emergency medical systems led health policy leaders, as well as the general public, in countries without these developed emergency medical systems to think that attempting to develop such systems would be worthwhile.
 * In short, while both sentences are about mature emergency medical systems,
 * the first sentence is about the impact those systems had on health policy makers and health professionals in the countries with mature emergency medical systems
 * the second sentence is about the impact those systems had on health policy makers and health professionals in the countries without mature emergency medical systems
 * Of course, it's entirely possible that I don't understand your question, either. AmericanLemming (talk) 07:33, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe, which paved the way for new ideas" The collapse of communism was not a construction worker or a steamroller. As such, there was no paving. (Avoid colloquialisms)
 * ✅ Yep. Here's another one. AmericanLemming (talk) 07:18, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


 * "And the aging population in many countries has" Sentences should not begin with "and".
 * ✅ Again, one day I'll train myself to think literally... AmericanLemming (talk) 07:15, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Development organizations ... "help other countries establish and develop emergency care systems." They provide "ongoing educational and organizational assistance." The first quote can easily be paraphrased. The second quote seems like such a wishy-washy yes-man phrase that it should be kept as a quote, but why is it a separate sentence? Development organizations ... help establish and develop emergency care systems in other countries by providing "ongoing educational and organizational assistance."
 * ✅ I think you're better at writing articles than I am. AmericanLemming (talk) 03:43, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. It takes two sets of eyeballs to get write the most goodly. --Cryptic C62 · Talk


 * Footnotes

Ref numbers based on this revision.


 * Ref 4 History of the Development... is broken. Unfinished template, perhaps?
 * ✅ It's better than it was, but it might need more improvement. You'll have to let me know. AmericanLemming (talk) 04:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Ref 17 Kobusingye... Very hard to tell where one author ends and another begins. This should employ the convention used everywhere else: Last, First; Last, First. Also, why is the raw url given instead of linking the article title?
 * ✅ The good news is that the author names are in the correct order and the article title now links directly to the pdf. The bad news is that it only does so with a rather ugly | in front. AmericanLemming (talk) 04:35, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I just removed the "|" without any problems. When using external links, you don't need to insert a pipe to separate the url from the anchor text. You only need a space:
 * Ref 19 Krym... As far as I can see, this is the only citation which abbreviates the name of the journal (CJEM). This should be spelled out in full to be consistent with the others.
 * ✅ AmericanLemming (talk) 03:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding the paragraph on the International Conference on Emergency Medicine (ICEM): All of the citations used were published by the ICEM, which is problematic. While there is little doubt that the information is accurate, the notability of the ICEM has not been established. If the only information available on the organization was published by the organization, why should we assume that it is notable enough to be mentioned in this article? See Third-party sources for more details.
 * ) I've got a few sources to back it up. Ref 4 calls the International Foundation for Emergency Medicine (the organization that plans and hosts the ICEM) "probably the most active, broad-based, international organization dealing with international EM development issues." I've got several other PubMed sources as well: Source 1, Source 2, Source 3, and Source 4. Take a look at those and tell me what you think. AmericanLemming (talk) 05:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll continue reviewing after the above issues are addressed. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:29, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your detailed review. I will begin addressing your concerns today. AmericanLemming (talk) 18:09, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I have now addressed or deferred all of your concerns. I cannot make further progress on some items until you give me more feedback (the ones marked ❌ or ), and if you think some things need further improvement (any of the ones marked ✅), then feel free to do so. AmericanLemming (talk) 01:28, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll be away until 27 July. Hopefully there's enough good stuff in here to keep you occupied until then. Cheers! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:18, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

As sort of a random question, how much work would I be looking at if I wanted to get the article to Featured Article status? AmericanLemming (talk) 04:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The best way to answer that question would be for you to just go ahead and nominate the article at WP:FAC. The article is definitely good enough that, at the very least, you'll get some useful feedback; it certainly won't be quickfailed. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:42, 5 August 2013 (UTC)