User:RMSanford/sandbox

Welcome to your sandbox!
This is place to practice clicking the "edit" button and practice adding references (via the citation button). Please see Help:My_sandbox or contact User_talk:JenOttawa with any questions.

Link: Project Homepage and Resources


 * Note: Please use your sandbox to submit assignment # 3 by pasting it below. When uploading your improvements to the article talk page please share your exact proposed edit (not the full assignment 3).


 * Talk Page Template: CARL Medical Editing Initiative/Fall 2019/Talk Page Template

Lightning Injury

Wikipedia Assignment #2:
Handbook of Clinical Neurology, Volume 120, 2014 981-986, Chapter 65 - Lightning and Thermal Injuries

Sanford, Arthur; Gamelli, Richard, L.

1) How you searched for a source (search strategy – where you went to find it).

I performed a search on PubMed using the MeSH terms “lightning injuries” for articles published within the last 10 years.

2) What potential sources were identified and considered (give examples of 1 or 2).

Jensen JD, Vincent AL. Lightning Injuries. [Updated 2019 Feb 19]. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2019 Jan-. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK441920/

This is a short article detailing lightning injuries published in 2019.

3) Why the source was chosen (what made it better than other choices).

The source selected was far more comprehensive than the other articles that were considered. Since the Wikipedia article that were are editing details lightning injuries, we decided an article that approached the topic with greater breadth was pertinent.

4) List at least three reasons why the source that was selected meets Wikipedia’s reliable medical sources (MEDRS) criteria.

This article is relatively recent, as it was published in 2014.

This article is actually a book chapter/review so it is a collection of primary information.

This article is free from bias, as it summarizes injuries and prognosis but does not recommend therapies that are not supported by the evidence-based.

5) How do you plan to use the source for improving the article?

We can give a better description of some injuries associated with lightning from a reliable source, whereas the current article cites a BBC news article as source describing injury formation.

Assignment # 3
Selected part for improvement:

Treatment[edit source]

Reported mortality rates range from 10–30 percent, depending on the source of data. Most people who are struck by lightning live to tell the story, but many suffer from long term injury or disability.

Proposed change:

The mortality rate for lightning strike is approximately 10%.

Rationale for proposed change:

This is written too casually, “depending on the source of the data” is not an acceptable means of stating that there is disagreement in the literature amongst mortality rates. No reliable sources are cited. The reported mortality rate of 10-30% is not repeated anywhere else in the literature that I could find. I have seen multiple reliable sources (including source [1] from the article) report a mortality rate of approximately 10%, which is the number that I have decided to report. I have added the citation [1] to the sentence, as this source is a recently published review paper on the topic. There are no controversies noted in the talk page for this section.

Critique of Source

It turns out that these two sentences that I have decided to re-write are a direct quote from the source, which is source [10] in the Wikipedia entry. This source is quite low quality. It is written by an aerospace medicine physician in the United States Air Force, and so it would qualify as expert opinion. The author of this article is seeking to “bust myths” associated with lighting strike, however, he does not cite any sources for the numbers (10-30% mortality) he reports. The source doesn’t strike me as biased: this physician is not encouraging any specific therapies, treatment, or products. Rather, he simply appears to be engaging with the public as a means of debunking misconceptions to educate the public and help them avoid being struck by lightning.

I am proposing to add a citation from source [1] (from the current article) at the end of this first sentence. Source [1] is a recently published peer reviewed review article on lightning strikes and their effects. It is most likely a narrative review, as there are no search conditions reported. However, it appears unbiased, as it reports the effects of lightning strike, the epidemiology, and the prognosis without recommending specific therapies.

Proposed change:

Survivors of lightning strike may suffer long term injury or disability.

Rationale for proposed change:

Again, the initial sentence is written too casually, the narration of “living to tell the story” is unnecessary and verbose. It is also unnecessary to say most people survive their strikes; a 10% mortality rate noted in the previous sentence tells you that most people survive. Therefore, I decided to make the sentence narrowly focused on survivors of lightning strike. The core idea of the sentence remains the same, just the wording and focus has changed. There are no controversies on the talk page or associated with this sentence.

Critique of Source

The source is the same one which I have critiqued above. It is an expert’s opinion; however, it does not cite any sources for the facts it reports. This source does not cite any examples for which long term injuries or disabilities could occur in those who are struck by lightning. It generally appears to be consumed by the lay public and was not likely to be meant as a source for citations within Wikipedia articles. Again, the source doesn’t seem biased, as he simply seems to be trying to help people avoid being struck by lightning.

I am proposing to add a new source to cite this sentence. The source that I am proposing to add here is

Handbook of Clinical Neurology, Volume 120, 2014 981-986, Chapter 65 - Lightning and Thermal Injuries

Sanford, Arthur; Gamelli, Richard, L.

This is a peer reviewed book chapter, so it is a good secondary source for used within Wikipedia. It is also published relatively recently (2014) and does not recommend any therapies that are not evidence based. It also details some of the long-term complications that can be associated with lightning strike. Finally, it also reports 10% mortality, so it further confirms the reporting of that number above.


 * Good changes! I think getting rid of "living to tell the story" was a definite must and tightening up/actually referencing data to substantiate the mortality was important.