Talk:Drowning

Wiki Education assignment: UCSF SOM Inquiry In Action-- Wikipedia Editing 2022

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 August 2022 and 20 September 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): LozoRa, BagiengK (article contribs). Peer reviewers: HannahEmeline, Mnguyen25, Etegebuna, Leilamilanfar.

— Assignment last updated by Leilamilanfar (talk) 03:37, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Great edits! Good addition of international comparisons of rates of drowning, and of cardiac considerations as risk factors. Constructive feedback: maybe extreme to suggest extensive genomic testing for anyone with family history of sudden cardiac death, but you could instead suggest discussion with genetic counselor or cardiologist. HannahEmeline (talk) 21:05, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Great work incorporating edits! The information that was added was all relevant and informative to the general public. Specifically, the addition of information regarding infant specific risk and prognosis was informative and important as infants/children are vulnerable to such accidents. I appreciated that you added information about the epidemiology of drowning in Africa and highlighting the underreporting of drowning incidents.

Suggestion: The use of the terms ischemic and hypoxic under the prognosis section, under Children sub-section, may be better off replaced with lay audience terms to make it legible for the broader audience. Another alternative would be to use add a link with a definition for those terms so that readers can refer to the link if they are not familiar with the terms. Another minor suggestion is to list out the names of the African countries mentioned in the reference study for the sake of specificity. Thank you for all the work you have put into the edits!

Samra Agezew Etegebuna (talk) 00:47, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Overall, great job! The article is very thorough and detailed as it provides a wealth of information regarding drowning in several populations. One change I would recommend is shortening the introduction (section above "Causes"). While it provides a wonderful overview of the topic, it is quite lengthy and provides too much detail at this point in the article. The placement of "Risk factors for drowning include alcohol use, drug use, epilepsy, low socioeconomic status" in the second paragraph disrupts the flow. For example, it might be better to move the blurb about risk factors elsewhere--it could even be omitted from the introduction as it is discussed in the "Risk Factors" under "Causes." I would also recommend further simplifying terms used--for example, the average person may not be able to understand what "extrusion of liquid into the lungs" means. Reduction of medical jargon may make it easier for the average reader to understand.

I would consider changing the Subheading "Free-Diving" to "Additional Causes of Drowning" as the sudden mention of "Free-diving" is a bit abrupt. It might be helpful to add other causes of drowning under this section as well. Alternatively, the section about free-diving could be moved up to the section above "Risk Factors."

I thought the "Prevention" section was great! It was extremely thorough and provided multiple precautions that could be taken. However, this section seems to take on more of an opinionated tone in the section on "Pool fencing" as it states: "Every private and public swimming pool should be fenced and enclosed on every side, so no person can access the water unsupervised." Although citing a systematic review and fencing pools is in the interested of public health and safety, the "should" implies less of a neutral tone. Perhaps rephrasing it as "Fencing and enclosing private and public swimming pools to prevent unsupervised access to water has been shown to decrease incidence of drowning, etc" would be more neutral. Mnguyen25 (talk)Michelle Nguyen — Preceding undated comment added 23:03, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion and rewrite?

Hello there, I propose a speedy deletion of this article, since rewriting it to fix all the errors would take a lot of time, but using speedy deletions means that this article can be started over again. The type of speedy deletion in particular is this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Db-g1, tell me if you disagree with this, and I will respond as soon as possible.

Sincerely, 49.192.44.178 (talk) 14:28, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

The g1 speedy deletion requirement is that the text be "patent nonsense, consisting purely of incoherent text or gibberish with no meaningful content or history". This article is simply badly written in places, and has 19 years of history to it. It could not be deleted under db-g1. --Lord Belbury (talk) 14:49, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I have added copy edit and citation notices to the article, and tried to remove all the lists and turn the text into prose, as @Coyopelly suggested, but unfortunately, some editors have reverted all my edits, saying that the issues have already been solved, even though there are still spelling and grammar errors in the article that need copy editing. Can anyone explain why those people have reverted my edits?

Sincerely, 49.192.44.178 (talk) 13:49, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

User:WhatamIdoing reverted your edit with a summary of "list formatting". I'd agree with them that condensing a bulleted list into a paragraph of text without rewriting any of the individual sentences (if this is what was done) makes that text much harder to read.

User:Anonymous 512 removed the copyedit template with a summary of "copy editing has been done since original tag was put up", which is true, but not enough of a reason to remove the tag: it should be removed when no significant further copyediting is needed. I agree that the article still needs work, so I've put the template back. --Lord Belbury (talk) 19:09, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, @Lord Belbury, because you added my copy edit notice back.

Sincerely, 49.192.44.178 (talk) 09:33, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Is the error not fixed yet?

I revisited the article today, and I think it has been much improved when I last saw it, @Belbury. Maybe a sufficient amount of time has passed to delete the copy edit error? Thenewright22 (talk) 11:43, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

It's definitely looking better than it was, from a superficial reading. Make the call and remove the template if it looks okay to you. --Belbury (talk) 09:41, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for replying, I have removed the error now, since the article makes more sense now in my eyes.

Sincerely, Thenewright22 (talk) 09:49, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Drowning is a bad death

Do you agree? 2607:FA49:3442:A00:F9EA:E281:69E0:9DB0 (talk) 14:29, 8 July 2023 (UTC)