Talk:Coronary artery bypass surgery/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Tom (LT) (talk · contribs) 04:26, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, nice to meet you, I will be taking up this review. I'll be reviewing this article against the six good article criteria (WP:GA?). As way of introduction, I mostly edit anatomy and medical articles and have reviewed around 75 - 100 articles for GA status. I will spend a few days examining this article before posting my assessment and as always look forward to a dialogue after if there are no significant issues identified. Cheers, Tom (LT) (talk) 04:26, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tom, nice meeting you! That is an impressive number of GA reviews! I will be awaiting your review and comments. Note that I have listed the article for Copy-editing ( I am not a native English speaker). Maybe we can postpone the review, maybe not- I am not sure. Cinadon36 05:07, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cinadon36, thanks for your edits and this nomination. I have had a look and do have some issues:

I agree with you that this article needs some copy-editing.
I think also that this article needs to be simplified a bit - it's full of acronyms, medical jargon and written I think from a surgical / medical perspective. Concepts should be wikilinked where possible. I wrote an essay about this topic if it helps: WP:ANATSIMPLIFY. See also: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles#Common_pitfalls.
I can't help but feel this article is not as comprehensive as it could be (see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles#Surgeries_and_procedures for common headings) - I think in particular the non surgical course before and after the operation could be more fully explained, and, in fact, lots of things are just listed but not much attempt is made to explain in simple terms why they occur.

Thanks greatly for your edits to this article - it's clear a lot of effort has been put in, and the referencing is solid and the pictures are pretty relevant. However, Rome wasn't built in a day and, with the active copyediting tag and these issues, I'm going to fail this review for the moment. Happy to take up the review again if you want to renominate once you've addressed these issues. Thanks again for your contributions, Tom (LT) (talk) 09:38, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Tom (LT): for review. I was not aware of those guidelines, I will have a look. I will try to improve the article further and I will call for yet another review. Cinadon36 11:34, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. By the way, asking here (WP:GOCE) and here (WT:MED) might help you find editors willing to copyedit. Tom (LT) (talk) 09:24, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]