Talk:Coronary artery bypass surgery/GA3

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Just-a-can-of-beans (talk · contribs) 23:18, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I'll go ahead and take up the mantle and give this a proper review. I will make edits to this template as I go over each section.

Great, thank you! I checked the citation and it links to the corrigendum - I'm going to replace that citation with the full guidelines which do support your statement (and the specific page relevant to this). Thank you for finding a good source. Edit: this was supposed to be a reply within the template under item 4, not sure why it's not showing up there Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 18:47, 19 January 2024 (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.	The "Indications for CABG" section seems a bit overly technical, but not excessively so, and this is possibly an inherently technical section. A minor nitpick - the prose and grammar is easily strong enough for GA status. Also, I'm going to make a small edit to clarify the meaning of PCI in the History section, because it's only explained much further up on the page, and some readers are likely interested in the History section without the more technical stuff. 22:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The only nitpick I have is that the Complications section could probably use some subsection headers. It's a bit content-heavy to not have them, and this kind of section is usually easy to incorporate them into. But it's not overly unwieldy and I think certainly not a barrier to GA status.
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.	Several paragraphs below the lead are not cited. Please go through the article and add citations to all paragraphs that lack them. 22:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC) Added[1]. Is that enough? I cant see any other paragraph missing a citation. Cinadon36 05:27, 13 January 2024 (UTC) Looks good, thanks! Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 18:56, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
	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).	18:56, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
	2c. it contains no original research.	22:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	18:57, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Comprehensive. Exceeds what I think would be necessary for GA status, but is not out of scope either. Nice page. 22:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	See 3a. 22:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	There is a major claim within the "Results" section which is a problem. The start to this section states, "CABG is the best procedure to reduce mortality from severe CAD and improve quality of life." While this assertion is cited, that citation is hard to access, and there is no explanation or elaboration of what exactly justifies it as the "best" procedure. I think there are two relatively easy resolutions here: 1. Elaborate on this claim, providing comparisons that directly demonstrate why CABG is superior, using information from that source. 2. Provide a source which supports the same claim but is easier to access and verify. Until one of those is done, this statement seems like it could be a biased piece of personal opinion. I'm going to need a few more days to finish this review up, so if you see this before then and make the changes, I will change this before making a final decision. 22:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC) I get your point. To be honest, I believe that while it is a strong statement, it is not a controversial one, at least in the current practise. I chose the second opinion, I added the european guidelines on revascularization. At page 24, there is a summary with the recommendations. Why is CABG better? In my opinion, the best explanation is, as prof Taggart writes frequently, LIMA can produce NO that inhibits the progression of the disease. But I wouldn't like to dig into that, while it is an interesting subject, it would be out of the scope the article and too technical.Cinadon36 05:49, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	23:24, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
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.	23:23, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Nice images throughout the page. All are topical and licensed appropriately. 23:23, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
	7. Overall assessment.	Thank you for responding to any critiques I had. This is an excellent and well-researched page and you should feel proud of it, because many people who have this procedure done are going to come to this page nervous and poorly informed, and now thanks to you they're going to have a strong understanding of it. In that sense, what you've done here is really a community service. Excellent job. Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 19:01, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

If I have any additional comments, I will add them below. Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 23:18, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Just-a-can-of-beans:, many thanks for taking this on. Cinadon36 18:52, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, my apologies for the delay. I've just made some progress but lack the time tonight to finish things up. However, I noted two hold points, so I'm sending this reply so that hopefully you can see them and fix them before I finish up this weekend. Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 22:18, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your time. There is no rush, take your time. I replied to those two points, added some citations as well. Tell me if that is adequate. Cheers! Cinadon36 05:50, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I've finally gotten to finishing this up. Sorry again for the delay and thank you for addressing the issues I identified. You've done a great job and I'm happy to pass this very Good Article :) Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 19:02, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @Just-a-can-of-beans for your review and your kind words! :) Cinadon36 12:25, 20 January 2024 (UTC)