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)