Talk:Heart/GA1
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Jclemens (talk · contribs) 05:35, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Lead identified as long enough, but not comprehensively addressing all portions of the article. Update: IAR accepting this, because with this length and importance of an article, the alternatives are to a) short-change the existing coverage to add coverage of culture, cuisine, art, and such, or b) lengthen the lead further to cover those topics, or c) remove coverage of those topics from the article. THUS, my decision is that the existing lead appropriately summarizes the core points of the article, while complying with the MOS for lead length. |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | |
![]() |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | Other than the unreferenced sections towards the end of the article, no original research has been identified. |
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | No copyvio identified with automated tools--single hit appears to be a mirror of a prior version of the article, complete with Wikipedia markup. |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Good, comprehensive article on the human heart |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | No issues noted. |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | No issues noted. |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | All reviewed, no defects or concerns found. |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Excellent selection. |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | Not going to let the technicalities of lead length/coverage hold this article up from passing. It's come a long way. |
Initial Thoughts
[edit]- Lead delves too much into some of the topics, but does not touch on everything in the entire article, and it's already pretty large. This is going to be a challenge to rewrite well, so I wanted to highlight this up front. Jclemens (talk) 05:58, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Done How is it now? I removed a lot of extraneous information --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:01, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- this shows 2 dead links, and ref #4 also appears to have a 404 output that is not correctly detected by that script. Jclemens (talk) 06:20, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Done fixed the two dead links. Ref #4 isn't a 404 at my end? --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:01, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- Lead and body differ on number of chambers in a fish heart (2 vs. 4). Jclemens (talk) 06:20, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Done clarified in the fish section. --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:01, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Firstly, thanks very much for taking up this mammoth review of a very complex organ. I'm reassured when I see the huge amount of reviews, barnstars and GA nominations that this will be a thorough and systematic review. Please take your time and be systematic and I'll try and address your concerns as we go. If you could be specific when you mention something that will make this easier to address. IF you're not sure about something you can ask here or at WT:MED or WT:ANAT for some help. Iztwoz and CFCF were both significant editors to this article and may help with the review. I look forward to your review :) --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:50, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
- Heh, or I'll just break out my own Netter's or related works. I'm not a zoologist or an anatomist, but I am a practicing clinician and have access to a wide variety of professional medical resources on the topic. Jclemens (talk) 09:02, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
- Great to hear. I should add most of my work and responses will be on the weekends, --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:21, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
First detailed text read-through
[edit]Lead
[edit]- "the human heart is located in the middle compartment of the mediastinum in the chest"
- "In a healthy heart blood flows one way through the heart" Wouldn't there be a comma after the first heart?
- I think describing all of four-chambered heart circulation and mechanical action in paragraph 3 of the lead is likely to be a good spot to trim, in order to make room to cover the parts of the article not currently summarized in the lead. I note that the entire paragraph seems to be referring to the mammalian/bird heart.
- BTW, I completely endorse updating the lead LAST. Jclemens (talk) 19:09, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
- As an update on this, I like how the lead reads currently, but it does not even begin to touch on history, culture, or non-human hearts. How do you think that should be addressed? Jclemens (talk) 21:33, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Structure
[edit]![]() |
---|
I will try to do at least one additional section per day, but will be in class for the next few days. I think work on this section is going to be relatively self-contained, so if my questions prompt changes, feel free to start in on them. Jclemens (talk) 19:51, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
|
Development section
[edit]![]() |
---|
Of the sections, my personal familiarity with this is weak. The text seems reasonable and straightforward.
|
Physiology section
[edit]![]() |
---|
|
- In the Heart Sounds subsection, the illustration "File:2029 Cardiac Cycle vs Heart Sounds.jpg" seems like it would be better suited here than in Cardiac Output, above.
Question: this is such a classic representation of the cardiac cycle I'm inclined to leave it there. I do however have a question - it seems we have two images - cardiac cycle against ECG (one in cardiac cycle, one in ECG). I think I should remove one. I find the current one at the top not very useful. What's your opinion on what should be chopped? --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:34, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- I'm OK with how it looks now. I don't know that any image in particular needs to go. Jclemens (talk) 21:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Overall, there's a lot to work on here, both in terms of figuring out what goes where, but also in terms of making sure that the text is clear and complete. Again, feel free to start working on identified problems at any point, as I continue marching through the text. Jclemens (talk) 03:18, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review. Some of the influences section could be moved to a 'nerve supply' section above. I will think about it and update the article in a day or two when I come to a resolution.--Tom (LT) (talk) 05:34, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Still--Tom (LT) (talk) 20:11, 3 August 2016 (UTC)Doing...
Done --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:42, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Clinical Significance
[edit]![]() |
---|
... and that's enough for tonight. Jclemens (talk) 04:44, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
|
History
[edit]![]() |
---|
Overall, this section doesn't seem to contribute a lot to the article, and my knowledge of this is admittedly sparse. Jclemens (talk) 04:28, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
|
Society and Culture
[edit]- Symbolism No real comments here. Ancient Egyptian thought seems to get relatively more weight. Well, Broken Heart and Cupid seem grafted onto the end of cross-cultural descriptions of heart significance.
- Food Well referenced, and feels like it belongs in a completely different article. Jclemens (talk) 04:28, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
How about we break this entire section off into a separate article? The rest of the article is a pretty solid A&P article, but this whole section seems to be out of place--more so than the history section which is terse and somewhat sparsely referenced in places. Jclemens (talk) 04:30, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Comment. as an anatomy editor I think it's very important to keep historical and social and cultural information on articles. There is a tendency to view organs from a medical perspective (perhaps because of the editing cohort) but it's important to remember organs existed far longer that we've known about them, and their importance doesn't just end at the exit door of a doctor's surgery. Social, cultural and historical information is fascinating and very informative and as these sections are not too long, I think they should stay on the main page. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:13, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- OK, I'll defer to you on this one. The material's all appropriate somewhere, the question is only, at most, where it should go. Jclemens (talk) 21:35, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Other Animals
[edit]![]() |
---|
|
OK, so that's the end of the first pass. Jclemens (talk) 05:03, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
- Thank goodness. I'll slowly make my way through this! --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:24, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Currently still--Tom (LT) (talk) 07:14, 2 August 2016 (UTC)Doing.... I'll leave a note here when I've responded to your review in full...
- @Jclemens ready for the next set of replies. Please box anything that you consider resolved so I don't lose track of what needs addressing. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:55, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- Noted, the ball is in my court. Unfortunately, I will not be able to significantly review this until Tuesday or Wednesday, in all likelihood. I want to give it my full attention, and I have a few other projects needing mine more urgently. Jclemens (talk) 00:04, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Jclemens ready for the next set of replies. Please box anything that you consider resolved so I don't lose track of what needs addressing. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:55, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Comments by Dunkleosteus77
[edit]- ref 102 shows an error message
Comment. See below. Can't find which reference--Tom (LT) (talk) 09:24, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- check ref 104, it looks like a journal ref but it's missing authors, publication date, and the title
Comment. See below. Can't find which reference--Tom (LT) (talk) 09:24, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- Use this converter to convert ISBN-10 to ISBN-13 as per WP:ISBN
Not done this is a "How to" page and is not required for a GA review, is very time consuming and doesn't improve the quality of the article. So I will not be doing this. --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:24, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- It'll take a couple minutes, it's just copy/paste again and again
- ref 94 is missing a title
Comment. See below. Can't find which reference--Tom (LT) (talk) 09:24, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- check ref 4, for page numbers it reads "pp. 422–." Also it's a book ref so it doesn't need an access date
Done--Tom (LT) (talk) 09:24, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- ref 16 is just a url
Done--Tom (LT) (talk) 09:24, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- ref 23 needs a publisher (The Free Dictionary By Farlex)
Done--Tom (LT) (talk) 09:24, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- the publisher for ref 39 is About.com, not Biology.about.com
Done--Tom (LT) (talk) 09:24, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- the publisher for ref 38 is MedicineNet.com, not Medterms.com
Done--Tom (LT) (talk) 09:24, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- ref 43 has a free version online at https://archive.org/details/GuytonHallTextbookOfMedicalPhysiology11thEdition
Comment.--Tom (LT) (talk) 09:24, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- the title for ref 52 is just "Different heart diseases" and the publisher is "World Heart Federation"
Done --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:24, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- the publisher for ref 64 is the American Heart Association
Comment. See below. Can't find which reference--Tom (LT) (talk) 09:24, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- make sure to use template cite (and if you don't, the page number comes before the ISBN)
Comment. See below. --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:24, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- for ref 107, instead of saying "page unknown", use template {{page needed}}
Comment. See below. --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:24, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- it's now ref 115
In response to this, I want to point out that verifiability, not an impeccable list of references, is what is required for GA status (WP:GA?). That said thanks for your attention and I've tried to adress as many of these as I can. Unfortunately because I've edited I've lost track of the reference numbers, so if you can let me know the reference names/authors I'll fix the ones I've lost track of.--Tom (LT) (talk) 09:24, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- The good news about multiple people nitpicking things in good faith during a GA review is that by fixing all of that up you are just that much closer to FAC once all is said and done... :-) Jclemens (talk) 00:05, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- ref 125, ref 126, and ref 133 are missing a title, authors, year of publication, and publishers
Done --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:35, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- ref 110 and ref 132 shows a cite error
- the title for ref 102 would be "Look up All Chinese Words in a Text?"
Not done this page is the dictionary entry for the Chinese word for heart. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:35, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- ref 116 should look like Rombauer, Irma S.; Becker, Marion Rombauer; Becker, Ethan (1975). The Joy of Cooking. The Bobbs-Merrill Company. p. 508. ISBN 978-0-0260-4570-4.
Done--Tom (LT) (talk) 00:35, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- what is ref 112 supposed to be?
- Magazine article, looks to be. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:35, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- the ISBN for ref 100 (Death and the Afterlife in Ancient Egypt) is 978-0-2267-9164-7
Done --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:35, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- the ISBN for ref 99 (Middle Egyptian: An Introduction to the Language and Culture of Hieroglyphs) is 978-1-1076-6328-2
Done --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:35, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- any reason why the title for ref 120 is in all caps?
Done good point - have decapitalised. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:35, 20 August 2016 (UTC)--Tom (LT) (talk) 00:35, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Second full read-through
[edit]- In Valves, we've got two adjacent sentences (1st and 2nd paragraphs) which begin "The valves between the atria and ventricles"
Done thanks, clarified --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:01, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- Coronary circulation "Blood circulates through the coronary circulation cyclically" How about "through the coronary vessels" to avoid circulation/ates twice in one sentence?
Done --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:01, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- "It does this by smaller branching arteries - diagonal and septal branches." How about "It does this by branching into smaller arteries" or something like that?
Done --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:01, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- Nerve supply "The heart receives nerves from the sympathetic trunk and the vagus nerve." The heart is innervated by? Receives nerve signals from? I'm sure there's an equally correct and less awkward way to say it than "receives nerves"
Done the heart does receive physical nerves from the sympathetic trunk, I've change the wording to reflect this --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:01, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- Disease I'm still struggling with this sentence: "Many other medical professionals are involved in treating diseases of the heart, including doctors such as general practitioners, cardiothoracic surgeons and intensivists, and allied health practitioners including physiotherapists and dieticians." From my perspective as a practicing PA (that is, as a medical practitioner, NOT allied health), dieticians and physiotherapists do very little compared to what I do actively managing hypertension, anticoagulation, and the like. How about something like: "Cardiologists manage heart problems, with interventionalists managing the electrical and coronary circulation problems with solutions such as pacemakers and percutaneous coronary interventions (stents). Cardiothoracic surgeons repair structural defects with open heart surgery, coronary artery bypass surgery, and similar interventions. Multiple other medical and allied health professions help in the prevention and treatment of heart disease."
Not done lol, it is tempting to see one as the crux of treatment (which you probably are) but there is a whole ecosystem of allied health that works within hospitals, rehabilitation and in outpatient settings to help manage heart failure. Allied health play an important role in the management of heart disease, so I won't be changing this sentence.--Tom (LT) (talk) 01:01, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- "Heart failure is where the heart can't beat enough blood" deliver enough blood, perhaps?
Done clarified. Heart failure is clarified by beating out blood (systolic and diastolic) not just delivering blood to the body. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:01, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- "or cause the heart to dilate and impact on the effiency of its beating" I think the 'on' is extra there.
Done fixed the spelling mistake, removed on. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:01, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- "Murmurs are graded by volume, from 1) the quietest, to 6) the loudest." I'm thinking "1 (the quietest) to 6 (the loudest)" is probably a better way to format that.
Done --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:01, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- "the frequency of the sound as determined by the side of the stethoscope by which they are heard" This assumes that all stethoscopes have a bell/diaphragm configuration, which is not universally true.
Not done "if present" I think is implied here, this is part of a list of ways that murmurs can be characterised by. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:01, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- In Treatment the link to implantable defibrillator should probably be Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator rather than the general defibrillator article.
Done --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:01, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- Since we seem to have different acronyms across the pond, how about we just spell out "nitroglycerin[e]"?
Done good point --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:01, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- Since this is a scientific article without particular religious impacts, should we not be using BCE/CE rather than BC/AD?
Not done standard even in nonreligious texts in my geography, and used mostly in the history section, no convincing reason to change. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:01, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- "The breakthrough came with the publication of De Motu Cordis..." Which breakthrough? Into widespread modern understanding of cardiac function?
Done fixed --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:01, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- "In Catholicism, there has been a long tradition of worship of the heart," I suspect 'veneration' may be more appropriate than worship in that context.
Done good point --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:01, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- The first two paragraphs of double circulatory systems appear somewhat redundant.
Not done one is relating to double circulatory systems in general, one paragraph relates to reptiles.--Tom (LT) (talk) 01:01, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- Excellent work cleaning up the fish heart section, BTW.
Done thanks --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:01, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- ... and that's all for this pass. I'll hat some stuff and adjust things now. Jclemens (talk) 21:29, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Done many thanks. I think I've addressed all your concerns. Hopefully the article is very close or at GA standard. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:01, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- Addit: except the lead. I will get around to this within a few days.--Tom (LT) (talk) 01:11, 20 August 2016 (UTC)