Wikipedia:Peer review/Heart/archive1

Heart

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to know what others think about its future suitability for good article status.

I'm not 100% responsible for its content
I don't intend to be 100% responsive to edits

I invite editors to comment and edit. For users who are not familiar, the criteria good articles are reviewed against are here.

Cheers, Tom (LT) (talk) 10:17, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've notified at WikiProject Medicine as well. Joel. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 09:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ping to Iztwoz and CFCF who've played a large role in editing this article. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:18, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

in contrast to the other article (peripheral artery disease) I believe this one has too many illustrations( when it is useful and serves the point of informing the reader it is a good idea, however images should not be used for "decorative effects" ...IMO --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:14, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good point! I count at least 5 pictures with references to ECGs here, plus a number of pictures of tablets which are similar to tables in text...--Tom (LT) (talk) 23:31, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK I've removed a number of duplicate images and also moved some images around to more relevant sections. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I used Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles#Anatomy as a guide to check whether all the expected topics had been covered. I feel that in the "society and culture" section there should be a subsection about the economic cost of of treating heart related health issues. I think that coverage is warranted here because elsewhere in the article a lot of attention is given to treatment of medical problems related to the heart. There is a major economic divide over who can access appropriate treatments, and I think something should be said about cost and access to care in that section. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I will consider whether to put this in a separate section or as part of the 'modern histry' section.I've removed an indent from your reply to keep track of individual points, I hope that is OK. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:31, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I will place it in the 'surgery' section of 'clinical significance'. I think that makes the most sense. I may make mention of the cost of statins in the lifestyle disease section too (I will provide a reference to justify 'lifestyle' and make some mention of the gray area too, but I feel this is probably the heading most readers will be familiar with, and not entirely inaccurate) --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:15, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from myself: a number of modalities that assess cardiac function (echocardiogram, stress tests, angiography, etc.) should be mentioned together in the 'clinical significance' section. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:49, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a placeholder and will flesh this out tomorrow. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from myself: there is a lot of coverage of the tables and electrical conduction. Could this be moved to the child articles? --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:49, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done I've summarised one table and moved the other tables (And images of tables). It's confusing to have the same idea in three different places and I'm not sure the tables do the best job of communicating to lay readers (1 - in text, 2 - in our table, 3 - in an image that is a table). --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moved off the page. --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since my comments on talk page nothing much has changed in the article. Suggested combinations of subsections which I think would be of help weren't carried out. I was also going to make the same point about overuse of tables - much of the content was cut and pasted from a textbook and a lot of the content to me - particularly the tables - is still textbook padding. That said, I haven't looked at very recent changes.--Iztwoz (talk) 08:26, 22 April 2015 (UTC) Just had a quick look and glad to see tables have been dealt with. Would also say that I dislike the use of gallery images in the body of the text - think they belong in additional images. also think some captions are overly detailed. --Iztwoz (talk) 08:34, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Iztwoz, actually I've combined quite a few sections together, trimmed some images, removed the tables, and since your comments in November 2014 a large amount of the physiology section has been moved off the page. I'll get to the captions. So you have been listened to :) --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only place I've used the gallery is in the 'development' section. Because this is a specific section I am not sure readers will be aware more images will be at the bottom of the article. That said maybe we should just move them to Heart development? --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should consider merging / reorganising the "Heart rate" and "Electrical conduction" subsections... there's a lot of duplication in these sections and they're pretty difficult to read end to end. --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:15, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, I've significantly shortened those sections but I think they should stay separate, as they're about different things. One is why the heart beats, the other is how the heart beat gets transmitted across the heart. --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:18, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]