Template:Did you know nominations/Electric bath (electrotherapy)


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:01, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Electric bath (electrotherapy)

 * ... that a luminous discharge can be seen around a person taking an electric bath? Bird, pp.85-86
 * Reviewed: Enddsleigh Gardens

Created by Spinningspark (talk). Self-nominated at 18:19, 2 April 2018 (UTC).


 * Article moved from sandbox yesterday, so the article qualifies for DYK. More than 4,000 characters, so good here as well. Picture is public domain. Article is neutral and well sourced, apart from the last sentence, which still needs a citation. QPQ checks out. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:30, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The last sentence says that this "is no longer a part of mainstream treatment". It is fairly evident that this is so, but I cannot find a cite to explicitly say that.  I have done a good faith search of the medical literature to make sure (nothing comes up) and have also asked the question at Wikiproject Medicine.  I can remove the sentence if you want, but, per WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV, it is more harmful to risk readers running away with the idea that this is a currently recognised treatment than leaving in an uncited sentence.  I would also point out that WP:V does not require every sentence to be cited. SpinningSpark 16:12, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you find a source for the claim that the "term Franklinization still occurs in cosmetic electrotherapy" though? Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:22, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No, I can't find a RS that says that, but I can find plenty of dubious sites that are bandying the term around as if it is a thing, or else conflate it with some other form of treatment. None of those sources should go in the article when we start talking about modern medical practice.  We really have to follow WP:MEDRS here, and modern medical literature has pretty much nothing to say on the electric bath or Franklinization.  So the choice here is to declare that last sentence OR and leave it out, or let it stand as a useful concluding remark per WP:WEATHERMAN.  I suspect that now it has been tagged, the first option is the only choice. SpinningSpark 11:14, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, with this sentence, I'm afraid that we would get into a grey area of WP:WEATHERMAN. It's not like saying "It rained so the street was wet." Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:49, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Done. Another victory for Wikipedia's little blue number disease over common sense.  Apparently it's better to mislead readers than leave a simple clarification uncited. SpinningSpark 12:58, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry about that, when it comes to citation, I follow a "better safe than sorry" approach. However, this DYK gets an A-OK from me. Congrats! Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:45, 4 April 2018 (UTC)