This is a list-class medical or paramedical article
Did you know nomination
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.
Comment: Image only a schematic and therefore optional. The article's prose size is measured as 48 words 197 words or 1428 characters, but obviously not including its main body, which, as often with stand-alone lists, is actually a table. I therefore humbly request an exception to the
rule of 1500 characters. First DYK nomination. On a tangent from the
Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced articles/Backlog drives/February 2024.
The problem I have with this article is that this isn't a particularly 'good' 1,400+ characters; lose the three
WP:SEAOFBLUE lists, and we're at little over 1,000. Even if we were to count the content in boxes, virtually all of the Description column is unsourced. I am reminded of arguments made earlier this month at
2024 Netball Nations Cup. In short, I wouldn't say no, but I'd want to see some more work on this. (Note also that I do my QPQs oldest first; other editors are free to jump in ahead of me.)--Launchballer 10:39, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Launchballer: Thank you for your review! I understand the policies; I still think that the table contains some substantial prose, and substantial encyclopedic content (unlike - I dare say -
2024 Netball Nations Cup). I believe the table format works well here, and changing it to prose would not serve a purpose other than to make it DYK-eligible. I do not think your concerns that the lead is not very substantial are unwarranted; though I truly don't think more introductory content, other than an outline of endocrinology as a medical specialty, is either needed, or indeed to be located in the sources. My seas of blue - which by the way are not the truest ones, as they are separated by commas - serve exactly to outline endocrinology, and I don't see why they should be excluded.
As regards citations, they are absent from (almost) all boxes in the Description column because the citations in the end of each row, under Uses, cover the respective descriptions as well. My research before nominating yielded few standalone lists in the DYK archives that I could use as guides, and not an absolutely clear policy on
where in a table row inline citations must be placed. (Full disclosure: I do not exactly comprehend what
WP:WHENNOTCITE tries to say about lists and tables). I also note Featured Lists from the sciences with somewhat comparable ostensibly uncited columns, like
List of parasites of the marsh rice rat or
Camouflage methods. In any case, the description of the ultrasound system is in citation 4, of a continuous glucose monitor in citations 7 and 8, and so on. Still, if you feel inline citations should be repeated there as well, that's no biggy.
I'm with you, this article is a bit better than the cup article. With the benefit of a few days, I wonder if it's worth letting the lists 'breathe' a bit, for example "the hypothalamus, the pituitary gland, the thyroid" or "various diseases of the thyroid gland such as X, various metabolic bone disorders such as Y". I made a test edit, and I got it up to 1,497 without the "such as"es.--Launchballer 10:29, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I reinstated my test edit, so this is just above 1500; there may very well be possibilities for concision but given that
Andreas Kieber was IARed and ran yesterday with no complaints despite being under, and that there is clearly well over 1500 characters of content in the article, I'm IARing here as well. Full review needed.--Launchballer 07:54, 8 April 2024 (UTC)reply
If I had know about
Andreas Kieber, it would have been pulled. The test edit is far from ideal; the number of repetitions of "various" is excessive, and a decent copyedit would take the article below 1500 prose characters once again: this is a hard number that should always be met, and I'm frankly shocked that any article was allowed to slip by. This article needs an actual expansion, not gratuitous additions of unimportant words to pad character count.
BlueMoonset (
talk) 22:04, 11 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Cheerfully reverted. I do notice that Nikos has not edited since 23 March, and I'm not convinced that he will return, so I'm minded to close this.--Launchballer 22:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC)reply
This is a list-class medical or paramedical article
Did you know nomination
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.
Comment: Image only a schematic and therefore optional. The article's prose size is measured as 48 words 197 words or 1428 characters, but obviously not including its main body, which, as often with stand-alone lists, is actually a table. I therefore humbly request an exception to the
rule of 1500 characters. First DYK nomination. On a tangent from the
Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced articles/Backlog drives/February 2024.
The problem I have with this article is that this isn't a particularly 'good' 1,400+ characters; lose the three
WP:SEAOFBLUE lists, and we're at little over 1,000. Even if we were to count the content in boxes, virtually all of the Description column is unsourced. I am reminded of arguments made earlier this month at
2024 Netball Nations Cup. In short, I wouldn't say no, but I'd want to see some more work on this. (Note also that I do my QPQs oldest first; other editors are free to jump in ahead of me.)--Launchballer 10:39, 23 March 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Launchballer: Thank you for your review! I understand the policies; I still think that the table contains some substantial prose, and substantial encyclopedic content (unlike - I dare say -
2024 Netball Nations Cup). I believe the table format works well here, and changing it to prose would not serve a purpose other than to make it DYK-eligible. I do not think your concerns that the lead is not very substantial are unwarranted; though I truly don't think more introductory content, other than an outline of endocrinology as a medical specialty, is either needed, or indeed to be located in the sources. My seas of blue - which by the way are not the truest ones, as they are separated by commas - serve exactly to outline endocrinology, and I don't see why they should be excluded.
As regards citations, they are absent from (almost) all boxes in the Description column because the citations in the end of each row, under Uses, cover the respective descriptions as well. My research before nominating yielded few standalone lists in the DYK archives that I could use as guides, and not an absolutely clear policy on
where in a table row inline citations must be placed. (Full disclosure: I do not exactly comprehend what
WP:WHENNOTCITE tries to say about lists and tables). I also note Featured Lists from the sciences with somewhat comparable ostensibly uncited columns, like
List of parasites of the marsh rice rat or
Camouflage methods. In any case, the description of the ultrasound system is in citation 4, of a continuous glucose monitor in citations 7 and 8, and so on. Still, if you feel inline citations should be repeated there as well, that's no biggy.
I'm with you, this article is a bit better than the cup article. With the benefit of a few days, I wonder if it's worth letting the lists 'breathe' a bit, for example "the hypothalamus, the pituitary gland, the thyroid" or "various diseases of the thyroid gland such as X, various metabolic bone disorders such as Y". I made a test edit, and I got it up to 1,497 without the "such as"es.--Launchballer 10:29, 28 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I reinstated my test edit, so this is just above 1500; there may very well be possibilities for concision but given that
Andreas Kieber was IARed and ran yesterday with no complaints despite being under, and that there is clearly well over 1500 characters of content in the article, I'm IARing here as well. Full review needed.--Launchballer 07:54, 8 April 2024 (UTC)reply
If I had know about
Andreas Kieber, it would have been pulled. The test edit is far from ideal; the number of repetitions of "various" is excessive, and a decent copyedit would take the article below 1500 prose characters once again: this is a hard number that should always be met, and I'm frankly shocked that any article was allowed to slip by. This article needs an actual expansion, not gratuitous additions of unimportant words to pad character count.
BlueMoonset (
talk) 22:04, 11 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Cheerfully reverted. I do notice that Nikos has not edited since 23 March, and I'm not convinced that he will return, so I'm minded to close this.--Launchballer 22:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC)reply