Talk:Still's murmur/GA1

GA Review
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 and  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 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)

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


 * 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)

Please let us know how we did. KaitVW312 (talk) 23:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) I have not found a difference between these two terms. They appear to be synonymous even in other Wiki articles.
 * 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: 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. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 16:01, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 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 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.
 * Great thanks for the further feedback. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC)