Talk:British surfers catch more than waves: Scientists find antibiotic-resistant bacteria

As always, collaboration is welcome. I will spare you some of the other delightful puns available for this subject. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:35, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I listed the Mayo Clinic source last because its content is almost certainly the oldest. NBD to me if anyone wants to move it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

No paywall, no problem
I just added content straight from the study. I provided tags saying which part of the study each fact came from, but ping me if you need further translation from science-ese. You may find the non-pdf link easier to work with: Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:14, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * One important point: Early on in the study, they say something like "we examined samples from surfers, bodyboarders and body surfers, hereafter referred to as 'surfers.'" Establishing a for-this-paper-only definition is normal for scientific studies. So if you look at a later part of the study and see "surfers," remember that they mean all three groups of people. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:40, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

"Beach Bum" pun
Not offended if anyone deletes the line about the meaning of the words in the survey name but it strikes me as something an international reader might not know. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:06, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I generally think English speakers would be familiar regardless of where in the world. I don't know how much we are supposed to cater to people with limited English skills. But that's just my opinion. It's probably not taught in schools. --SVTCobra 15:52, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * FYI, I hid all the dictionary stuff and added a Wiktionary link. If readers complain, we can probably unhide. It just really broke up the flow of the article. I'd rather not mention the nickname than have all that stuff in there. But the nickname is "official" and not just in the press. Cheers, --SVTCobra 01:44, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Limits of the study
Should we highlight that the study is limited? Per the study's methodology: "97 bathing water samples from England and Wales were analysed." It is entirely possible there's something going on in the waters of England and Wales and that global surfers are not as much at risk. Cheers, --SVTCobra 15:52, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The text now explicitly states that all samples were collected from the United Kingdom. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:26, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

When?
Day word in lede? --Pi zero (talk) 16:08, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "Sunday." Did someone delete it? Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:20, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Nope. There it is: "In findings published Sunday in Environmental International." Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:20, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Doh. --Pi zero (talk) 01:02, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Review of revision 4376443 [Passed]

 * I recall acagastya objected at some point (validly) that a reviewer can't assume, just because information occurs in one place to which their attention has been directed, that there isn't something else somewhere else in the sources that the reviewer ought to discover that will cast doubt, or at least a different light, on the information. That's true, of course; but, yeah, it seems to me too that those annotations, used with due caution, can be quite helpful in moving things along.  --Pi zero (talk) 01:58, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. But an article, such as this, will ultimately rely on the primary source, which is the study itself. The study is the event, the subject, the center of the article. To know where to look within it is helpful. There is no way around that. I do welcome a second pair of eyes. I spent two hours on the review, but I am not an epidemiologist. Wikinews is, after all, not a . Cheers, --SVTCobra 02:09, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * BTW, I suppressed what I saw as going too far to explain "Beach bum". Thoughts? --SVTCobra 02:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * There's precedent for it. I spelled out the meanings of "pro-life" and "pro-choice" in an article about the March for Life last year even though most native speakers already know them.  Two out of three Wikinewsies were of the opinion that a line to the effect of "Ramjan is another name for Ramadan" would have improved an article about a murdered teenager.  I got some complaints for not spelling out the meaning of "faithless elector" even though there was plenty of context.
 * Speaking from my own experience, "bum" meaning "rear end" is not something we say in the U.S. (We say "butt.") I can bet there are plenty of Americans who wouldn't realize that "Beach Bum" was meant to be understood both ways, even though they'd probably figure out what "bum" means in other contexts that don't have a more obvious meaning ready to go. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:02, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, yeah? If I told you to "Go stick it up your bum, ya bum!" I am pretty sure you'd understand both meanings regardless of the side of the Atlantic or Pacific Oceans. /joke --SVTCobra 03:32, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the joke. I wasn't around for the examples you cite. But I didn't delete your work, it can be restored. --SVTCobra 03:36, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Heh. I only mean that because Americans are likely to know what a "beach bum" is, they might think that that's the only thing the study name means. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:23, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Regarding possible mistakes: "we know the exact number: 143 (no need to say "about 150")" I chose "about 150" because "recruited" can mean more than one thing in this context. The project actually recruited 389 people and 154 surfers but did not use the samples from all of them. This is normal for studies performed on humans. If you look at Figure 2 in the study (section 3.3), they spell out who was excluded and why. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:17, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, since we don't mention why anyone was excluded (and we certainly don't mention the numbers you just now brought up, which also are very exact), it seems we can assume the reader will understand that 143 was the number of subjects in the study, anyway. --SVTCobra 03:32, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Let me ask you directly: Did I mangle the article so much that it should not have been published in its current form? --SVTCobra 03:45, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Probably not. But you raised the possibility that you could have made a mistake, which I interpreted as an invitation to talk about possible mistakes.  I also interpreted your comments as an invitation to provide you with some information about how technical studies like this work.
 * We wouldn't say why subjects were excluded or even that they were excluded because that's how the system always works. It's like a jury in a trial: In most Wikinews articles about trials, we don't explicitly say that exactly twelve people were selected from a larger pool of people called up for jury duty who underwent voir dire or go into why the others were excused because that's how the system always works.  We'd only get into jury selection or study participant selection if the point of the Wikinews article was to discuss the methodology, such as if they made the news for having flawed selection methods. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:23, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Just to state the obvious, if there are fixes/improvements wanted, they should be submitted as edits for review sooner rather than later, since we only have 24 hours after publication before our only recourse would be to issue a correction. --Pi zero (talk) 03:56, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Unlike Israeli Health minister Ya'akov Litzman resigns in protest after Jews made to work on Jewish rest day, that article did not have much to do with Ramzaan, and mentioning "Islamic holy month" was more than sufficient. And the thing you were asked to explain was due to the fact that not all democracies have two major parties, and its affect for the story; story's affect to the ongoing event was strong. Regarding the spelling, why don't you say anything for Mysuru/Bengaluru/Mumbai/Navi Mumbai/Odisha? •–• 16:28, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean that article; I meant the one in which the teenage girl was kidnapped on her way back from religious services. I think it might have aged out. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:08, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I am aware of what article you are saying -- I can even tell you when I wrote that, I have the documentation. The thing is: for that article, Ramzaan's significance to understand or interpret the story was not much, unlike mention of Shabbath for that Israeli transport minister article. •–• 22:14, 17 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Please take the LOLCOW debate elsewhere. This is not the proper forum. Thank you. --SVTCobra 20:17, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Stop jumping in the discussions which you do not know anything about. •–• 22:14, 17 January 2018 (UTC)