Talk:Fossa ovalis (heart)

Limbus
add limbus of fossa ovalis.

Process and results
For the heading, "Process and results", you could probably say "Formation and Resulting Structure", or something of that sort because viewers won't know what process that you are talking about without doing further reading.

What about the title "Fossa Ovalis Malfunction" or "Malfunction" instead of "When the fossa ovalis does not close" for the heading.

What about "Aneurysms In Adults" instead of "Aneurysm of fossa ovalis in adults"? Readers will know what the page is about, so you wouldn't have to include the subject in each heading.

Also, in the first sentence of the heading "fetal circulatory and respiratory systemsa', I wouldn't say "...as with other systems..." because the fossa ovalis isn't a system, so you really can't associate it with other systems.

(Bleonard4 (talk) 03:17, 22 April 2012 (UTC))

I think that there is a lot of ver good information in this article but I think that some of your sources may not be the best ones that you could find. You may want to find some more Peer reviewed sources or some medical journals. I have found one source just to give you guys an example

Jorygotham4 (talk) 01:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

peer review
I also agree that your group has some really good information. I would suggest checking for grammar and unnecessary capitalization through out the article but especially in the section 'When fossa ovalis does not close'. Fpliljeter02 (talk) 02:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Anatomy Class
I liked the information that you put up on the page but i suggest you proof read over it again to catch some small grammar mistakes. Also maybe try to simplify some of your wording instead of saying the same things over and over again. Str7 (talk) 02:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you all provided a lot of good information to the page. I would have to agree with everyone else to check spelling and grammar throughout the article. Some sentences I had to re-read a few times to try to understand the wording of the sentence. I also agree with Jory that your sources are not peer reviewed from credible journals. You may want to try to use the databases on the Herrick Library website to find secondary articles. DsMason35 (talk) 00:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I feel that you provided adequate and good information on various topics pertaining to Fassa ovalis. I suggest that you check spelling and sentence structure, many places the information did not read smoothly. I would also consider making the information easier to read my including bullet points instead of just long paragraphs. I feel that there are many places in which you can take out needless wordiness and make your ideas short and simple. Marissa.Ray (talk) 04:44, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi! Your content is pretty good - very thorough, but I'd definitely have to agree with the previous comments on grammar; just try to double check your punctuation (and lack-there-of) - some of your sentences run on. Additionally, the sections and section titles are a tad wordy. Try taking a look at other Wikipedia pages (besides our class') to see how they are laid-out visually. You have enormous sections, with a a lot of bulk text. This is good, especially because your content is sufficient, but can make it difficult for readers to find specific information, which is kind of the point of Wikipedia... Caroline E Jones (talk) 10:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Community feedback
Hi. I noticed a class is editing this article, with the possible intention of nominating the article for WP:GAN. That is a fantastic goal to work for. The following is a check list of things I would recommend be done before doing this: These are some basic criteria if you seriously want this to pass. If you nominate them with out making sure these are addressed, the article will likely not pass. Best of luck. --LauraHale (talk) 09:58, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Read WP:MEDMOS to make sure the article complies with the medical manual of style.
 * Read WP:MEDRS to make sure the article complies with referencing styles. I would also convert over all the citations to use citation templates.
 * Review Good article criteria, tick off every criteria to make sure this is done.
 * Add another 20 to 40 references to the article. The average medical GOOD article has between 50 and 200 sources that meet WP:MEDRS. That's what you should be aiming for.

Your article is very thorough, but for some sections (particularly the Adult Respiratory) it isn't immediately apparent how it relates to your main topic. Would it possibly make more sense to start with the fetal section? That leads into the process part quite nicely. Also, I notice you have not linked out to connect to other wiki pages as wikipedia wishes us to. KaitVW312 (talk) 15:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)