Talk:Still's murmur

Peer reviewed

In the first sentence in the second paragraph under the heading "Discovery and History", you could possibly reword the sentence to something like "....through the discovery and understanding of Still's murmur, many descriptions have been used to compare Still's murmur to what the common person would understand". The wording of that sentence is a little off, and you don't really have to say interesting and unique because they are kind of almost the same description.

(Bleonard4 (talk) 03:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC))

We have addressed this rewording. Is it satisfactory now? KaitVW312 (talk) 02:03, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

After reviewing the page, I got a better understanding of Still's murmur. However, I found a few places where commas could be inserted. For example, a place where a comma could be inserted, to let the sentence flow better, is the first area labeled "Definition." The sentence that has "usually occurs in children ages two to five years," there should be a comma after children. Also when reading in the "Discovery and History" section, I think the sentence would flow better if you took out the "described/discussed" from the second sentence and just used one of the words instead of the / sign.

(Arf7 (talk) 19:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC))

Corrected KaitVW312 (talk) 02:03, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

This maybe a personal preference or an easier way to set up, you could move your definition and description sections to the top (before the contents box). Involving the treatment section, are there treatments/interventions for severe cases that do not self-correct? Who is more affected by this condition, male or female, or is it equally distributed? This wiki page is straightforward and well described in a concise manner. (Eprjumper (talk) 24 April 2012 (UTC))

Since we did not find a gender distinction, we chose not to speculate in this article. Regarding "severe cases," Still's murmur only maintains that name if there is not a severe underlying condition. It is purely benign in nature.

KaitVW312 (talk) 02:03, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Overall this article gives a good sense of the topic. However, the second section "Discovery and History" is in need of a lot of editing. It is full of grammar, punctuation, and spelling errors. I think you will have a really good article once you fix that section. (Kristara789 (talk) 21:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC))

Corrected KaitVW312 (talk) 02:03, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Overall this article is well written and easy to follow. Some Suggestions: Possibly explain what the conditions around the heart that cause the stills murmur are,you just state that there are conditions. I found a lot of grammatical errors throughout the entire article along with many places that could be worded differently, some of these errors were distracting to me while I was reading the sections. Great article once these are fixed! Marissa.Ray (talk) 04:42, 25 April 2012 (UTC) Marissa Ray —Preceding undated comment added 04:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC).

Corrected grammatical mistakes and reworded sections. Hope this helps! KaitVW312 (talk) 02:03, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that the contents of this page is well written, it is easy to comprehend even if you do not know much on the subject. There needs to be some proof reading however. The "Discovery and History" section in particular I noticed a typo in the sentence "In the Still first noticed the innocent murmur in his young patients, he followed the patients over the years and came to the conclusion that this murmur was of no harm except that some got really anxious about having a heart murmur even if it I an innocent one" at the end. (Elisabethpj (talk) 9:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC))

Corrected KaitVW312 (talk) 02:03, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The "discovery and history" section needs to be roof read for grammatical mistakes, redundancy, and inconsistency. It felt really hard to follow and the wording was strange. Other than that, I thought the page was very well done and thorough. (Morgandalis (talk) 11:48, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Corrected KaitVW312 (talk) 02:03, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I feel that the definition should be part of the "introduction" section, since there is currently only one sentence describing what the article is about before you get into the more detailed information. I also don't know that description and definition should be separate, I think perhaps the structure of the article needs some work. The language in the article feels slightly too informal, and not "encyclopedic" enough. Also, make sure you cite after every piece of new information you introduce, so that it is clear where the information is coming from. Once you fix these, I think you have a lot of good information. HopeBarnum (talk) 17:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Fixed citations. The group elected to keep the structure as is for now, but thank you for the suggestion. KaitVW312 (talk) 02:03, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

A few Suggestions:In the discovery and history section there is a random fact about the discovery of the stethoscope. Although interesting I think it should be eliminated because the two events didn't happen in the same time period, and we can just click the link to read all about the stethoscope. The last sentence in the same paragraph has this typo in it "...even if it I an innocent one." That should be easy enough to fix. The first sentence of the next paragraph sounds weird, the word discover needs to be changed to discovery. In the same sentence there are two or three different thoughts that do not have a verb to tie them all together. Maybe you could just clarify the sentence or break it up into two separate ones. I really enjoyed the description section of the page. It details exactly how the murmur sounds. It was a great spot for it because it breaks up all the scientific talk. The second sentence of the anxiety in parents section has a typo at the end of it. I think you were trying to say that parents with a child who has this symptom have greater anxiety than "other" parents. That is also very easy to fix. Other than those few things I thought your paper was well written and interesting. I especially enjoyed the anxiety portion because it's ironic that the parents are more affected by the disease than the children are. Brady Bonacquisti (talk) 15:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I believe we have fixed these issues. KaitVW312 (talk) 02:03, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The page contains all of the information necessary to fully explain Stills’ murmur but some editing is needed. Many grammatical errors can be found as well as sentences that seem to run together making little sense. The information that is trying to be conveyed is there, just reading the article is a little tedious. The only other thing is that some language needs to be changed to sound more appropriate. It is nice however that the authors were trying to write in a fashion that would allow everyone to comprehend that information. Some quick rewriting and the article will be very well done. Jrsmith23 (talk) 18:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

These issues should be fixed. KaitVW312 (talk) 02:03, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Still's murmur/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jmh649 (talk · contribs) 09:05, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

A brief review

Will review further if these are addressed:

• Please read WP:MEDMOS with respect to formatting medical articles
• As references we prefer secondary sources (such as review articles or major textbooks) Refs such as this [1] and [2] are not sufficient when better refs are available.
• References need to be properly formatted. Please see other GAs for how to do this. Cheers--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:05, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. After reading the resources you directed us to, we believe we have resolved these issues. KaitVW312 (talk) 21:32, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Have not addressed WP:MEDMOS. Please see [3] Or the second point.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

After reading the section the link has sent us to, from my understanding you would like us to change our headings. We have done so to what we think best fits.smith1819 (talk) 23:12, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Great now they just need to be ordered in the proper order and they need to be capitalized properly.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:52, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay have addressed a number of things. The lead as per the tag still needs work. More comments below. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:51, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

1. How loud are these typically on the one to 4 scale (a ref http://books.google.ca/books?id=j272REejmWMC&pg=PA822)
2. Whether it is systolic or diastolic should be discussed in the diagnosis section
3. You should us person not "patient" per WP:MEDMOS
4. It relation to a venous hum http://books.google.ca/books?id=ICqfeidZDT4C&pg=PA19
5. Under diagnosis a discussion of what this needs to be differentiated from is needed http://books.google.ca/books?id=LyxNF2kpYqEC&pg=PA96
6. The fact that it is loudest supine is important for diagnosis http://books.google.ca/books?id=LCCcmRGVzwYC&pg=PA257
7. What is not heard is important in the diagnosis http://books.google.ca/books?id=KuVJXCJldOQC&pg=PA63
8. What are its other names (this ref lists 5) http://books.google.ca/books?id=vvVvcKXwIsMC&pg=PA65
9. It is a type of functional or innocent murmur http://books.google.ca/books?id=KuVJXCJldOQC&pg=PA63

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:51, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

In regards to your numbered comments:

1. I'm not sure what you mean by this, the link you posted leads to a blank page in a google book.

Comes up fine here.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

1. Added to Diagnosis
2. I think I found and corrected all these
3. Addressed in Diagnosis
4. Attempted to address to the best of my understanding from the source I have.
5. Added to Diagnosis
6. Also addressed in Diagnosis
7. We do mention those terms within the article a number of times. Our sources, however, do not treat "innocent," "functional," "normal," and "physiologic" as synonymous with "Still's" murmur. Since we have so many sources that do not agree with this, I am not entirely comfortable putting them in as other names. My understanding is that there are other benign heart murmurs, but that Still's is the most common.

Yes agree. They are not all exactly the same. But these varies terms and how they relate to each other needs discussion.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

1. I have not found a difference between these two terms. They appear to be synonymous even in other Wiki articles.

Please let us know how we did. KaitVW312 (talk) 23:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Still waiting to see a couple poor quality references improved. Someone has now tagged them.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

And it would have been useful to use the above textbooks as refs.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:21, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Another review

I've gone through and noted numerous problems: please review my edit summaries for detail, but from memory I found:

1. Serious WP:OVERLINKing of common words along with serious underlinking of relevant or undefined medical terms. If a term isn't defined via a wikilink, we need to create the wikilink or tell our readers what it means. We don't need to link common English words known to most folks.
2. Sentences starting with numbers, and faulty dashes on number ranges (see WP:MOSNUM and WP:ENDASH).
3. Text cited to individual, commercial, unreviewed physicians' websites. We don't do that. Anyone can write anything on the internet. See WP:RS and WP:MEDRS.
4. Text cited to primary studies.
5. Text in the wrong sections: see WP:MEDMOS#Diseases or disorders or syndromes on correct sections.
6. Redundant text and text whose intended meaning I could not decipher.
7. Undefined terms everywhere (sample, what is stoke volume ?)
8. Awkward, redundant or unclear prose. I've attempted cleanup, but I hope Doc James will check my phrasing for accuracy, as in many cases, I wasn't sure what the text was intending to say.
9. Read WP:LEAD; someone removed the tag asking that the lead be expanded to be a correct summary of the article, but that is still an issue. Generally, one sentence on each MEDMOS section should cover it.

The most crucial issue here is the faulty sourcing; there must be textbooks that cover this material, and we should not be linking to Joe Bloe's personal commercial website for medical information. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:01, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Great thanks for the further feedback. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC)