Wikipedia:Peer review/Anna Bågenholm/archive1

Anna Bågenholm
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I'm planning on taking it to WP:FAC (if it's good enough) and I'd like to get some second opinions and comments before then. Thanks,  The left orium  15:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: A most interesting story, quite new to me. A couple of general points: Prose review (I have made numerous minor fixes; these are the ones I haven't done.)
 * Ref 18 is a dead link
 * ✅  The left orium  20:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * For FAC purposes, all images will require alt-text. If you aren't sure what adding this involves, go to WP:Alt for information and instructions.
 * ✅  The left orium  20:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Lead
 * "got stuck" is inelegant. I suggest "became trapped"
 * ✅  The left orium  18:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Values over ten are normally written numerically, per the Wikipedia Maual of Style. Thus "80", not "eighty", "40" not "forty".
 * ✅  The left orium  18:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "before", not "until" she was rescued.
 * ✅  The left orium  18:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Suggested sentence reorganisation: "Bågenholm was able to find an air pocket under the ice, but after 40 minutes in the water became clinically dead."
 * ✅  The left orium  18:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Although not wrong, the mdash is a bit intrusive, and could be replaced by a simple comma.
 * ✅  The left orium  18:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "Bågenholm woke up paralyzed from the neck down on 30 May 1999, and recovered in an intensive care unit for two months..." No need to repeat the year, and "woke up" can be simply "woke". The end of the sentence is awkward. A more streamlined phrasing for the whole sentence might be: "Bågenholm woke on 30 May, paralyzed from the neck down; she subsequently spent two months recovering in an intensive care unit."
 * ✅  The left orium  18:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "she still suffers" and "is currently working" are time-specific statements which should be dated, e.g. "Although she has made an almost full recovery from the incident, late in 2009 she was still suffering..." etc. And: "at the end of 2009 Bågenholm was working..." etc
 * ✅  The left orium  18:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Background and incident
 * "29" not "twenty-nine"
 * ✅  The left orium  18:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "Bågenholm is an expert skier and usually skied after work." Awkward mixture of tenses, and again, time-specific. Suggest: "An expert skier,[5] Bågenholm usually skied after work" - perhaps "usually" should be "often"?
 * ✅  The left orium  18:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Rescue attempts
 * "When Bågenholm struggled in the cold water, she found ..." Needs small revision, e.g. "As Bågenholm first struggled in the cold water, she found..." etc
 * ✅  The left orium  18:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "Ketil Singstad led..." not "lead"
 * ✅  The left orium  18:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Rescue and recovery
 * "...proceeded the resuscitation attempt." Word missing? (proceeded with the resuscitation attempt")
 * ✅  The left orium  20:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Idiomatic English is "operating theatre", not "operating room". However, I'm slightly worried about the large number of doctors (more then a hundred) that apparently got into the theatre in the time indicated. How could such a huge number of medical staff be involved in a single case at the same time, however unusual?
 * I think I've fixed this. Please take another look at the article and let me know what you think.  The left orium  20:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * ...."she had to recover in an intensive care unit for two more months. After twenty-eight days, she was flown to Sweden in an ambulance helicopter for the remainder of her recovery..." Can you clarify - was she flown to Sweden in the middle of her two months of extensive care?
 * I think I've fixed this. Please take another look at the article and let me know what you think.  The left orium  20:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Write "Dr" rather than "Doctor"
 * ✅  The left orium  20:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "According to the journal Proto Magazine by Massachusetts General Hospital, ,..." What does "by" mean here?
 * ✅  The left orium  20:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Aftermath
 * First sentence: needs full stop, not semicolon, after "brain damage"
 * ✅  The left orium  20:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "...and got to meet..." Awkward, informal. Just "and met"
 * ✅  The left orium  20:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "As of October 2009, Bågenholm has made an almost full recovery, although minor nerve damage in her hands and feet remains.[8] She is now working as a radiologist at the hospital where her life was saved." Same problem of time-specificity as in the lead. Encyclopedias, unlike magazine articles, are long-term accounts which can't be tied down to the here and now. Suggested rephrasing: "As of October 2009 Bågenholm was working as a radiologist at the hospital where her life was saved, having made an almost full recovery although minor nerve damage in her hands and feet remains."
 * ✅  The left orium  20:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The sentence following, about her personal relationship, is not relevant and should be removed.
 * ✅  The left orium  20:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Where is Tywyn?
 * ✅  The left orium  20:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think you "appear" in The Lancet. I suggest "...and her case has been discussed in the leading British medical journal The Lancet."
 * ✅  The left orium  20:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Last sentence of the article seems a bit trivial, after such a great story.
 * ✅  The left orium  20:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd say that with the necessary polishing, this article has every chance of making it as a featured article. I am not watching my peer reviews at the moment, but if you want me to look at it again, please contact me via my talk page. Brianboulton (talk) 00:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review!  The left orium  20:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The fixes are fine, looks good to me. I'd support this (what happened to the sick child, by the way?) Brianboulton (talk) 09:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure, the sources don't mention that. Thanks again for the review. I'll nominate it for FA soon. :)  The left orium  14:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)