Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cataract surgery/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 17 March 2024 [1].

Cataract surgery

Nominator(s): · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 08:42, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of the most common elective surgical procedures of all time, the only effective treatment for a disability that affects almost all people who live long enough, that is highly effective with a very high success rate, and has a history going back to antiquity, but is very variable in accessibility and cost depending on where one is. The sort of thing a lot of people will look for on Wikipedia. I think I have covered all the most important aspects, and most of the more interesting aspects, but more eyes will find more errors and omissions. I am less concerned with FA status than with improving the article, so I may debate or request clarification for changes that I do not understand or do not agree with. Please feel free to make small changes that are likely to be uncontroversial if it will be less work than explaining them. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 08:42, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source age

Peter, you probably don't have any idea how much I admire your results here. This is an impressive achievement and much needed. I point this out because I'm planning to complain that some of these sources are a bit elderly compared to the ideal. I suggest specifically:

Faust (1984) could be removed (unless it's there as a historically important paper?).
- but Altman et al. (1985) is a historical paper supporting a historical statement, so it's okay.
Toczolowski (1993) should probably be replaced (for the definition) and is probably unimportant for the history.
Mathey (1994) should probably be replaced.
Thim (1993) could be removed.

From the present century, about 20% of the sources are 15+ years old. Without reviewing each one individually, this is unlikely to be ideal. We are usually hoping for sources from the last five years and willing to settle for sources within the last 10. The problem with older sources is that it's never easy to tell whether they're just "older" or if they're also "outdated". For example, "The pupil is checked for dilation using eyedrops; if pharmacologic pupil dilation is insufficient, procedures for mechanical pupil dilatation may be needed during the surgery" cites a 20-year-old (primary) source. Has anything changed since then? Maybe there's a new second-line drug available? Or maybe not? A 20-year-old source leaves me wondering; a recent source would help me trust that the information is up to date.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:03, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Faust(1984) mentions the origin of the term hydrodissection, at least in this context, so of some historical interest, but probably not important enough to keep if it bothers people. The term seems to be in general use, including in other applications, and the procedure appears to remain basically the same for this application, though there may be slight variations in technique outside the current scope of this article. I have found a more recent primary source mentioning importance and describing a variation of the technique which I have added (Tas 2018). Yanoff and Duker (2009) remains a better general description. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 04:13, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Toczolowski (1993) gives the best description of the technique that I was able to find, and as it is not generally used for cataract surgery any more, recent articles may not exist. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 04:36, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thim et al (1993) removed as redundant. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 04:44, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are alternatives to eyedrops for dilation of the pupil, which I have now mentioned with a reasonably recent reference. I don't think this is often needed, but worth mentioning. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 06:55, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mathey (1994) has been replaced by Han (2019) and Biswas and Batra (2020).· · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 07:36, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For several citations I have used a combination of a reference to a relatively old medical textbook as a high quality secondary source and a more recent journal article mentioning the matter as background information as a more current source. I think this is a reasonably practicable method of managing the problem when I have do not have access to more recent textbooks. Currency and completeness will always be difficult to establish in a developing field, and are among the reasons for the FAC process which hopefully make it worth the effort. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 06:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tweaks needed

The article is listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Database Report (the figure is the number of moss code hits):

8 - Cataract surgery - "procedure,anterior", "cararact", "epinucleus", "hydroexpression", "advanved", "phacosandwich", "phacosection", "faciitated"

Some seem to be technical terms; there are a few typos, but I don't think a full copyedit is required. Good luck and all the best, Miniapolis 16:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miniapolis, Thanks for the list, It seems like all the actual typos have already been fixed (thanks to those who did that), and thanks for your good wishes. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 15:13, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Dhtwiki fixed them; I was in the middle of a huge copyedit, and couldn't get to it. All the best, Miniapolis 19:53, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

This has been open for three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable movement towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:16, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So it goes, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 08:34, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, but this is clearly not moving towards a consensus to promote, and so I am archiving it. The usual two-week hiatus will apply. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:58, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:58, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.