Talk:William Heath Byford

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

One does not really die of angina, per se

The article says he "succumbed to angina pectoris". Angina is a symptom, not a cause of death; people with angina have heart disease, and it's that (often a heart attack) that is their actual cause of death. So the article should read something like "Byford, who had suffered from angina for XXX years, died of heart disease on May 21, 1890". Or, if the reference supports it, "...died following a heart attack on ...". To my mind, it's better to plainly say "died" not "succumbed", as the latter seems like a WP:EUPHEMISM (and it's a bit of a ten-dollar word). -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 20:50, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Succumbed means to die of an illness/disease which I personally found more descriptive. And I'll also be digging deeper to see if I can find a reference to what disease he had. Delqa (talk) 19:09, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:William Heath Byford/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ajpolino (talk · contribs) 17:21, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Delqa:, I see this nomination went up in April (Yikes! Pardon the wait) and that you've been on a short break recently. I'll aim to complete this review as quickly as possible, and we can be flexible with the suggested ~1 week response time if needed. Just let me know if you need additional time. I'll use the template below to keep things organized on the GA criteria. Ajpolino (talk) 17:21, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Must step away for a few hours, but hoping to finish this tonight! Ajpolino (talk) 19:16, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon me, I've been going through at a snail's pace. Finished the career section today; will do my very best to finish reviewing the article tomorrow. Ajpolino (talk) 04:30, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Finished the article and gave everything a once over today and I think this one clearly meets the GA criteria, so I'm happy to mark it as pass. Thank you for the interesting read! Ajpolino (talk) 22:12, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is well written.

a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
Early life - Small thing, but oftentimes fewer words read more clearly than more words. Some suggested: "would serve" → "served", "would be taken" → "was taken", "would move" → "moved", "would associate" → "associated" (and then "marry" → "married"), "would continue" → "continued"... etc. Basically I suggest you CTRL+F for "would" and see if a regular past-tense verb works just as well.
Career - publications, and get asked... just a bit of funny grammar/a typo. Fix however you please.
Career - My personal opinion is that who later became the governor of Colorado due to his shift to politics. is irrelevant to this article, but I'll leave the final decision to you.
Career - I don't understand why Byford first showed his interest in physical examination, when he published a paper called "Advantages of the Prone Position in Examining the Foetal Circulation as a Diagnostic Sign of Pregnancy" in 1858. is important. Is physical examination a lasting interest? Perhaps you could clarify in the text? Currently it reads as a random factoid.
Career - whom he provided financial, professional, and psychological support the psychological support bit sounds a bit odd. I don't have access to the ANB source, is that what it says?
In the ANB source, it states those three aspects.
Career - when Thompson was feeling the need for further medical education reads a bit odd. Any further details beyond "was feeling the need for"?
Also said in the ANB source, although not really clarified. I'm guessing it was due to her wanting to get a medical degree but it's not really stated in the source, all it says it that she was feeling the need to.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
Early life - Where did you find his mother's maiden name? I don't see it in any of the cited sources but my eyes may have just skimmed past it. Also, super minor quibble, but it seems reference 1 should be Ridenbaugh pg 10 (rather than 8), and reference 2 Lucas pg 51 (rather than 50). If you'd like to instead guide the reader to a page range using the {{sfn}} template, you can replace |page=50 with |pp=50–51 (for example).
For the maiden name, it's referenced in the ANB. And I'm also looking to fully redo the citing on this article today, which would fix the citation issues. Delqa (talk) 12:13, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Early life - New Albany, Indiana is not in Southwest Indiana (at least as our article classifies it). Maybe you could just say "southwest Indiana"?
Early life - You've wikilinked Crawford County, Illinois. The Sperry source suggests the move was actually to Crawford County, Indiana
Sadly, I don't have access to the ANB article. But it seems the DOI on your reference is pointing to the wrong article currently? Clicking brings me to an article on James Ambler. Looks like the correct one is 10.1093/anb/9780198606697.article.1200133. Also you don't have page numbers for the Beatty references. I'm assuming the article doesn't have page numbers (or is fairly short)? Just an FYI in case you don't know, in lieu of page numbers you can use |loc="Section name" in {{sfn}} to fill in a non-page location. That said if it's a short article I think you're perfectly justified leaving page/section labels off.
I totally forgot to change that part, my bad! Also it's a relatively short article so I don't believe it would be justified to specify the sections.
Career - ...invited to take the chair of... the cited source just says "was chosen to the Professorship of Anatomy at Evansville".
My article largely relies off of the ANB source, and in it, it also says invited to take the chair of Anatomy. I used the Sperry source as it specifically states that he moved there, but I've added the Beatty source too now..

3. It is broad in its coverage.

a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Both images are clearly in the public domain. Ajpolino (talk) 17:25, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Overall:

Pass/Fail:

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.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 21:43, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
William Heath Byford
William Heath Byford

Improved to Good Article status by Delqa (talk). Self-nominated at 13:26, 8 August 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • ... Good article status, QPQ appears not be required. Copyvio okay. Hook interesting. Could you clarify where the hook is in the article and which is the following citation please. Whispyhistory (talk) 19:24, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've just added in the hook under the "1859–1879 Founding of institutions" section. Delqa (talk) 17:05, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

" ... Cannot see the source. Hook in article now followed by citation to reference which requires subscription. Image clear and free. Whispyhistory (talk) 19:56, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:William_Heath_Byford"