Talk:Railway surgery/GA1

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

Reviewer: Ajpolino (talk · contribs) 21:46, 22 October 2019 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Overall, the article is excellent and was a highly enjoyable read! I have some very minor comments, which I've attached below. Sorry you had a fairy long wait for the review. Thanks for an interesting read! Ajpolino (talk) 22:30, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for reviewing. That's not too long a wait.  I've recently had five or six reviews come up together (I guess someone organised a purge of the backlog).  Most of them were telegraph related articles nominated in March, but the oldest was nominated in November 2018 and didn't get reviewed until September this year.  Anyway, I'm always happy to wait, there is always some other article to write or improve. SpinningSpark 00:06, 23 October 2019 (UTC)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * •It's somewhat unclear what is meant by "Company medical staff were also expected to help achieve political aims with expert evidence". Is that meant to refer to keeping down costs? Or does this refer to some other "political" aim the railway might have? Some clarification would be nice.
 * Not really, it does literally mean political aims, such as opposing regulations and legislation on safety and sanitation that the railway companies are not happy with. They are being used as spin doctors rather than medical doctors.  Of course, that might all boil down to bottom line on the balance sheet in the end, but that wasn't the intended meaning.  I've added In some cases chief surgeons were appointed purely on the basis of their relationship to important politicians.  Hope that gives the clarification you were looking for. SpinningSpark 10:40, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * •Some little grammatical junk:
 * •(In the lead) "The duties... were mostly concerned with..." is an awkward read. Maybe "The duties... mostly involved investigating accidents..."? Or "Railway surgeons mostly investigated accidents..."? Or whatever else you like.
 * Done. SpinningSpark 10:52, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * •(lead) "India railways to this day still maintain...". "To this day" and "still" are redundant. Just one of those two would get the idea across.
 * Done. I've also changed maitain → maintains for grammatical agreement—Indian Railways as an organisation is singular. SpinningSpark 10:52, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * •(Function/Traumatic injuries, last paragraph) You have a quote "yes, I see a lot accidents from the highway". Is that a typo (i.e. should it be "a lot of accidents"), or is that the way it's stated in the source?
 * Done. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 10:52, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * •(United States, first par) "From 1850 until World War I American railroad companies started to develop their own medical...". This makes it sound like the companies were just starting to develop medical infrastructure for that whole ~60-year period. Based on the rest of the section, it sounds like that's not the case (i.e. things were no longer "starting" by the late 1800s). Either way, it's a little confusing as written.
 * Done. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 10:52, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * •I'm a little uncomfortable with "Railway surgeons were keen to establish their profession as a separate discipline with unique problems" cited only to the 1899 textbook Railway Surgery example (unless that textbook says "we railway surgeons sure are keen to establish the separation of our profession.") Any chance one of your other sources comments on this?
 * Well no one puts it quite as bluntly as that, but there is a clear impression. Herrick in particular, argues the case at length with examples
 * "...between the force which may be exerted by railway engines and cars, and that of other construction, there is so great a difference as to change the condition of things to a very marked degree." (Herrick)
 * "In its [the Railway Surgeon] pages, and at their annual meetings, railway surgeons carved out their professional  self-definition  and  their  relationship  to  patients  and their employers, the railroads." (Aldrich)
 * "These two organizations took the lead in developing railway surgery as a speciality..." (Stemen)
 * "The great army of railway surgeons recognize he fact that in the treatment of railway injuries no special instructions are given in our medical colleges, and no text book on surgery especially treats of this class of case" (Stemen) Stemen is here arguing that such specialist literature needs to exist, not that it is unnecessary.
 * "The railroad presented unique hazards and created new types of injuries to which most doctors were not accustomed. Railway surgery quickly developed into a de facto medical specialty..." (Gillespie)
 * I think that gives a flavour of it. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 12:33, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * •Any chance you know the source of c:File:Drthomasbond.jpg? It's almost certainly public domain in the US (since it was very likely published sometime during his life) but it would be nice to have that information at the Commons page.
 * Sorry, I couldn't say, it's not my upload. But I'll try to do a search later and see what I come up with. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 00:06, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * •I've transferred c:File:Railway surgery operation.png and c:File:Hospital car, Florida.png to Commons so other Wikis might use them (and left your local copy per your request).
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * •I've transferred c:File:Railway surgery operation.png and c:File:Hospital car, Florida.png to Commons so other Wikis might use them (and left your local copy per your request).
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail:


 * I have now responded to all the points above. On the Bond image, I have requested the original uploader to comment. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 14:18, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Great! The changes you made look good. For the "keen to establish their profession..." thing, fair enough. For the image, thanks for looking into it. No sense in holding this up any further. It's a flying-colors pass. Cheers all around, and happy editing! Ajpolino (talk) 15:22, 23 October 2019 (UTC)