Talk:Abdominal angina

Abdominal angina has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: October 27, 2024. (Reviewed version).

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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Abdominal angina.

PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles)
The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine.
Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

"Abdominal angina" IS NOT used in reference to angina pectoris, but to "angina" itself, see e.g. de:Angina, so the redirect from "angina" to "Abdominal angina" is not correct either. -- Robodoc.at 09:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Passed. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:10, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Abdominal angina/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: IntentionallyDense (talk · contribs) 04:23, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Sammi Brie (talk · contribs) 00:04, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Mostly copy questions especially around style and structure vis-a-vis medicine. I'm a bit concerned about the level of comparative empty level-2 headers and the comparatively large lead section. Don't have issues on existing sourcing. Ping me when done or addressed. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 00:25, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sammi Brie I think I've covered everything now. IntentionallyDense (talk) 00:56, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know? If you fancy doing so, I always have plenty of GA nominees to review. Just look for the all-uppercase titles in the Television section. Reviews always appreciated.

Copy changes

I notice the lead section is rather large compared with the article's content. Is this typical in medicine articles?

I wouldn't say this is typical of medicine articles per say it's more just how I write leads but I will see what I can trim. IntentionallyDense (talk) 00:34, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the style "Dr. Baccelli" but "Dunphy" typical in the medical literature? I notice it in Tyson 2010 as well.

I'm honestly not sure here. I just chose to go with the wording that the Tyson source used but I can change it for consistency if you would like. IntentionallyDense (talk) 00:34, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Try "is not" instead of "isn't".

Done IntentionallyDense (talk) 00:34, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are many short sections, which is an issue unless this is typical in medicine articles. The last three level-2 headers contain only one paragraph.

I follow the WP:MEDMOS for the sections but I was thinking I could combine treatment and outlook as well as history and epidemiology. The reason these areas don't have much content is simply because of the lack of research on the topic. IntentionallyDense (talk) 00:34, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed Tyson covered the surprising lack of research. That might be worth reporting in this article. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 00:41, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add that to the history section, thank you. IntentionallyDense (talk) 00:44, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing and spot checks

The article keys on five sources (16 total inline citations), all of which seem to pass RSMED.

The structure of the Risk factors paragraph is too similar for my liking to the paragraph beginning Current research on AA shows in Tyson 2010. Consider reformatting to feel less like a possible close paraphrase.

I had hoped to do more spot checks, but two of the sources seem to have no access for me at all, not even through TWL or other institutional sources.

5 (van Bockel, Geelkerken & Wasser 2001, p. 102): Atherosclerosis is probably responsible for occlusions in more than 95% of cases Y
6 (Biolato et al. 2009): Can't seem to access.
11 (Tyson 2010): Checks out to the Differentials section. Y
14: Can't seem to access.

I rephrased the Risk factors section but let me know if it needs more work. The two articles you mentioned should be available through scihub and I can send you the pdfs if needed as I believe I have them downloaded. IntentionallyDense (talk) 00:42, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Images

The Gray's Anatomy images are PD. The other images are CC-BY from various open access research articles.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.