User talk:BrettG72
| This user is a student editor in University_of_Illinois_College_of_Medicine/Wikipedia_for_the_Medical_Editor_(Fall) . |
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, BrettG72, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Ian and I work with Wiki Education; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.
I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.
Handouts
|
|---|
Additional Resources
|
|
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:21, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
Peer Review Fun
[edit]Lead - I don't believe you were editing this section, but it felt like "low-hanging fruit." With our medical background, it was a nice little review of this familiar pathologic process. I, then, questioned who the broader audience is and found myself thinking that this may not be descriptive enough for lay people or newer learners. In their shoes, I find myself asking, "What are coronary arteries? Where are they? And how are they 'linked to heart disease and heart attacks'?" I think making a few connections for the reader, that the coronary arteries are found on the heart, that arteries (in general) carry oxygen rich blood, and that all cells in our bodies require this O2 supply for regular function is a necessary background to setup the knowledge nugget that "ischemia" is lack thereof--leading to cardiac cell death--ie infarct. I also think an open source image would be helpful in this section. I just did a search on Creative Commons, and the few open source images cardiac anatomy don't clearly show the structures we care about. So, unsure if there is another solution here!
Signs and Symptoms Section - I would leave the content and overarching idea found in the source article as is; and move your newly generated text ("Reduced blood flow to the heart associated with coronary ischemia...") to your lead (aforementioned section). Your additions are more pathphys than signs and symptoms. That said, I think it would be helpful to speak broadly about typical and atypical angina as concepts before breaking them into their own sections. I.e. - A lot of people get atypical angina, so these categories are not simply "Angina" and "Lack-thereof." It's that there are two classic presentations of this illness, and the nomenclature does not serve us very well. I also think it's an opportunity to address healthcare bias, as atypical angina is associated with middle-aged females and had historically been written off. This has obvious repercussions that result in half of the population receiving suboptimal care, and you may be able to move the proverbial needle on this.
Typical Angina Section - Your section here is a vast improvement! The source article had some strange associations. Consider changing "people" to "individuals." It sounds more academic to me. "CAD Angina may start to occur when the vessel is 70% occluded" belongs in the lead and wherever else you talk about the pathophys of the disease; I would also recommend avoiding abbreviations, as I think it will only slow down less familiar readers. Also, as you get toward the end of your work, consider having a look at your keywords and link them to other, related wikipedia articles (like 'angina' and 'sternum').
-- Consider also having a look at the 'Atypical Angina' section. If nothing else, it looks like the citation (citation 2) could be updated with new epidemiology data. Consequences - Change 'depriving' to 'deprivation' to maintain parallel sentence structure in your short list (consider something like: "...resulting in OCCLUSION of the artery and DEPRIVATION of oxygenated/oxygen-rich blood to the myocardial tissue, which results in cardiac cell death").
Exercise Stress Electrocardiogram Section - The first couple sentences need citations. Additionally, I recommend rethinking your paragraph structure. It feels trite to even make this recommendation, but think back to your freshman english composition coursework: topic sentence that reveals much of the paragraph's content, then giving the supporting evidence. So, something like "In order to diagnose coronary artery disease, exercise stress tests are routinely used to recreate anginal signs and symptoms in a controlled medical setting." After adding a topic sentence or two, the existing first two sentences could be merged with a conjunction for better flow. What's an ECG? I would avoid this abbreviation, especially if you haven't associated it with electrocardiogram earlier in the article; and I think this is even more confusing because the german abbreviation (EKG) is still much more commonly used in the USA, especially among the lay audience. What's NIH? Link it to its wikipedia article once spelled out. Lastly, the last sentence left me wondering why it's not recommended in new diagnoses. Perhaps an opportunity to throw in some sensitivity/specificity data with links?
-- I think you're still working on this section. I would separate into two sections, with "Exercise Stress Electrocardiogram" and "Medication-induced Stress Electrocardiogram" or whatever trade-specific adjective they use for the latter.
Thanks for the cardiovascular review!