Talk:Robin T. Cotton

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Robin T. Cotton article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

This article was nominated for deletion on 23 June 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Comments

Regarding: "was named one of the 'Best Doctors in the United States' in 1998". By WHOM?! -Medtopic 19:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

per official site, see citation if nessicary -Cormacalian 19:51, 23, June 2006

The official site didn't name him one of the best doctors. Some third party did. What third party named him one of the "Best Doctors in the United States"? The official site does not say. -Medtopic 19:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look into that, at these time i'll leave it as "according to official site" until it can be clarified what third person said this. -Cormacalian 20:13, 23, June 2006 (UTC)

Actually it should be removed until it can be clarified, however, I'm OK with it for a few days if you're looking for the source. Without knowing who awarded him that label (or what prestige they have to grant it), it's a meaningless assertion per Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability. -Medtopic 20:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it should be removed if said third party cannot be identified, but I'm confident that I can figure this out in time. However, I'll personally delete that section in a day or two if third party cannot be identified. -Cormacalian 20:13, 23, June 2006 (UTC)

Deletion

Seeing as no one voted against this article being deleted and seeing as the article has been better by many contributions I think it's a good time to take down that deletion sign. I am not sure if there is something about policy like we have to wait a week till voting is done or whatever, but if there is not one may I take that down?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cormacalian (talk • contribs) 04:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion to see how the process works. The header will be removed by an administrator once discussion is closed. -Medtopic 05:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence needs rewording

RE: "Cotton has been given credit toward the help of Cincinnati Children's diagnosis and treatmeant of pediatric dysfunction in otolaryngology..." This still makes no sense. Perhaps its better to stick more to the original meaning of the citation: "Cotton and his colleagues have developed a world-renowned ENT program." -Medtopic 05:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tried rewriting it. I think it flows better now - Cormacalian 19:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: "Through this interdisciplinary approach, Cotton and his colleagues have developed a ENT program that has made it easier for many patients to get the diagonosis and treatment they need for swallowing and speech disorders, tracheoustomy surgery, cochlear implants, and other areas related with Otolaryngoly.[6]" The original meaning of the citation is this: "Cotton and his colleagues have developed a world-renowned ENT program." It does not state that "interdisciplinary approach" was responsible for that, nor does it state that the program made it easier for patients to get diagnosis and treatment. -Medtopic 22:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The citation is lisintg the different diagonosises that the team does. "Through this interdisciplinary approach, Cotton and his colleagues have developed a ENT program that has made it easier for many patients to get... is taken from the earlier sentence about the interdisciplinary approach. Cotton works closely with team of doctors who specialize in areas including cardiology, immunology, neurology, pulmonary, and other fields depending on the individual patient.[5] So we already have a citation about how the interdisciplinary has made things easier when it states Families are relieved of the burden of arranging multiple appointments with physicians. They are also relieved of the additional stress created by long waiting times in physicians' offices and lack of communication among physicians caring for their child. (See citation [5]). Seems a little redudant to me to cite the same thing over and over. -Cormacalian 16:56 29 June (UTC)

RE: "Cotton, who was called one of the "World's Best Doctors" by HealthNews[7],..." Two points: 1) The link says nothing about best in the world, and 2) UC's HealthNews only reported the distinction. -Medtopic 22:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to fix this and put it in context, but I decided against including a better description of the basis for the award, since that is available at the reference. Personally, I don't think the distinction is all that worthy of inclusion in the article, since it's doesn't seem to be that unique of one. Peyna 22:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, really does not work. I'll rewrite it. -Cormacalian 16:46 29 June (UTC)

RE: "Cotton attributes his successful work not only to himself but a team of doctors who specialize in areas including cardiology, immunology, neurology, pulmonary, and other fields depending on the individual patient.[5]" It very well might be true, but the link does not state that "Cotton attributes his successful work" to those things. -Medtopic 22:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh

When did this article turn into a resume for Mr. Cotton? A lot of these "accomplishments" being listed just aren't encyclopedia material. If you have to work that hard to make the guy look good, perhaps there is something wrong. Peyna 13:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry you feel a need to somewhat bash this article titeling this talk as "Ugh". While some of your points are good ones show some mroe respect please. This is, after all, my first "real" article. So what points you have to make try and make instead of edging on rude. Also try contributiong. While I think this did become a fandom page somewhat, it is it its early stages. Try contributing where you see nessicary -Cormacalian 16:29 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Try not to take any comments directed at the content of an article personally; since they certainly are not intended that way, by myself or others. I view each article as having its own existence, molded and shaped by many other people, however those people are disconnected enough from it, and any disdain I have for the article should not reflect upon them. I would also point out that "Ugh" is generally an expression of frustration and not rudeness. Peyna 16:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I understand. I do think you meant it out of frustration but all it was perceived from my point of veiw as somewhat rude. But what would you suggest for the betterment of the article to keep it from becoming "resume" like? Also I think the reason it is harder to find information on Cotton is that most of the information I know about him are offline sources (which I really don't know how to cite on a wiki as of yet), also ENT is not the most known category. But this article is coming right along. -Cormacalian 19:35 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Category:Physicians from Cincinnati

This category has been proposed for deletion as overcategorization--we have no such categories for other cities. Please share your thoughts at the discussion on the Categories for deletion page. DGG (talk) 12:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]