Talk:CT scan/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Bibeyjj (talk · contribs) 13:46, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Opening Summary

Hi Iflaq! I'm happy to take on the review of CT scan. As a first year medical student, this topic is important to me.

I am aware of the previous failed review, and also of the significant work that you have put into the article since then. From a general glance at the article, it appears that good attempts at addressing some of the previous concerns have been made, so I will look in depth at the article.

I will be using the "GABox" template to keep track of general progress. A comment on each criteria, and whether it has been passed / failed / put on hold, will be put in relevant sections below. I will aim to respond to queries as fast as I can, although my availability of free time varies significantly through the week! Thanks! Bibeyjj (talk) 13:46, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for taking time for my request, I will be happy to help you during the review process. Iflaq ^(talk) 13:54, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

1a

Hold. In general, the prose is well written. It is generally understandable to a lay audience, following Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable. In my opinion, some of the compound sentences are too long. In general, shorter sentences may make the article easier to read. A few minor issues are noted below - please do not take this a a complete "to do list", just suggestions that may or may not require changes. Bibeyjj (talk) 12:52, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Action	Section	Current	Suggestion
Y	Neck	Also, CT scans often incidentally find thyroid abnormalities, and thereby practically becomes the first investigation modality.	The second clause may be better written as "and so are often the first investigation of thyroid abnormalities."
Y	Cancer	>100 mSv dose from CT scans in a single day.,	Remove the full stop, leave the comma.
Y	Cancer		In general, this section is a little technical. It could do with a greater summary style, following Wikipedia:SUMMARY. "Studies support" should generally be substituted with a synonym of "current evidence suggests".
Y	Contrast reactions	and an itching rash; however, more severe reactions may occur.	This may be better broken into two sentences, clarifying the rarity of more serious reactions.
Y	Contrast reactions	Death occurs in about two to 30 people per 1,000,000 administrations	"Two" should be replaced with "2" for ease of understanding and reading.
Y	Excess doses	Over 256 patients over an 18-month period were exposed... (continued)	This sentence is very long, and should be split into at least two sentences.
Y	Prevalence	For example, some healthy people avidly pay to receive full-body CT scans as screening... (continued)	This sentence is very long, and should be split into at least two sentences.
Y	Presentation	Still, the epitomes of volume rendering models feature a mix of for example coloring[149] and shading[150] in order to create realistic and observable representations.	The references may be better at the end of this sentence. The word "still" is also unnecessary.
Y	Presentation	Two-dimensional CT images are conventionally rendered so that the view is as though looking up at it from the patient's feet. (other examples)	Some of these sentences are very similar to ones in "Working". I will leave it to your judgement whether to keep the copied information. This may be impacted by changes to sectioning as per Wikipedia:MEDORDER in 1b of this review.
Y	Multiplanar reconstruction and projections	Average intensity projection (AIP) (in the table)	This is a red link, so may be considered for unlinking (although this is not required).
Y	Multiplanar reconstruction and projections	(table)	You may want to consider adding an additional column labelled "Uses", as the column "Description" does include uses for each technique.
Y	Dose versus image quality	Prior to every CT examination, evaluate the appropriateness of the exam whether it is motivated or if another type of examination is more suitable.	This needs a copyedit to make more sense!
Y	Streak artifact	The streaks can be reduced using newer reconstruction techniques[175][176] or approaches such as metal artifact reduction (MAR).[177]	You may wish to consider splitting this into two separate sentences so that references 175 and 176 occur after punctuation and are "cleaner".
Y	Partial volume effect	This is most commonly seen in the z-direction	I am not sure if the "z-direction" has been properly defined in this context. Would this be worth a bit of clarification?
Y	Ring artifact	showed that the method of Sijbers and Postnov [183] can effectively suppress ring artefacts.	The reference here may be better at the end of the sentence for ease of reading.
Y	Research directions	a goal that has been lingering	Needs a full stop at the end of the sentence.

Pass. Thank you Iflaq for resolving these minor queries with readability, spelling, and grammar. I am happy that the prose is now at a very good level. Thank you for also resolving other discrepancies, such as differences between British and American English I didn't notice. Bibeyjj (talk) 20:26, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

1b

Hold. Currently, the article complies with Wikipedia:WTW and Wikipedia:Embedded lists, but not fully with Wikipedia:LEAD, Wikipedia:LAYOUT, or Wikipedia:MEDORDER in relation to Wikipedia:Manual of Style. There is a lot of work to be done, particularly to the lead, but I believe that these issues are actually quite minor and can be resolved fairly quickly. I have tried to give an overview of what needs to be done to resolve each issue. Sorry if this seems a bit daunting, but these are the most important issues to fix for the whole article. Bibeyjj (talk) 17:51, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:LEAD not complied with. Elements are arranged correctly. The few citations are not disruptive. Whilst the previous reviewer recommended significant removal of content from the lead, I worry that 3 sentences is not sufficient to give an "accessible overview". Alternative names are handled well. Guidelines recommend that an article of this size (over 30,000 characters, while it is actually closer to 50,000) usually has 3 paragraphs in the lead. I have recommended a structure following 3 paragraphs below. This particular structure is not mandatory, but I hope it gives some idea of what the lead needs to achieve to follow guidelines.
  • overview, medical uses, other uses
  • types, procedure, mechanism, adverse effects
  • history, society and culture, research

• Wikipedia:LAYOUT mostly complied with. Section headings are correctly formatted. Appendices (see also, references, external links) are correctly formatted. Images are correctly formatted and in sections with relevant information. The table in "Scan dose" should be moved down slightly to avoid the clash with the image above. Potentially the list of CT scanner usage by country in "Prevalence" should be formatted to avoid using a collapsible list - this may include separating it into 2 tables side by side, although it is fine as is.

• Wikipedia:WTW complied with. No words introduce bias. Word choices are generally precise. No slang or obscenities are included. I particularly appreciate how "Campaigns" in "Scan dose" is handled sensitively and without bias.

• Wikipedia:WAF does not need to be complied with.

• Wikipedia:Embedded lists complied with. Few lists are included in the article, and all are appropriate.

• Wikipedia:MEDORDER not complied with. This article falls under the categorisation "Medical uses". An issue raised in the previous review was the poor sectioning, which is maintained. The recommended structure is transcribed here for convenience.

Action	Section	Suggestion
Y	Types	This should rename "Types of machine".
Y	Medical uses	This is correctly positioned.
Y	Other uses	This is correctly positioned.
Y	Interpretation of results	This should include content from "Presentation" and "Image quality".
Y	Adverse effects	This is correctly positioned, but should also include content from "Scan dose". "Advantages" is also acceptably positioned, and is useful to have its own section rather than being incorporated into other sections).
Y	Procedure	This should include content from "Working".
Y	Mechanism	This should include content from "Working" ("Contrast" is a good subsection).
Y	History	This is correctly positioned, but should also include content from "Etymology".
Y	Society and culture	This should include content from "Campaigns" in "Scan dose", and "Prevalence" (both are good as subsections of this).
Y	Research	This is correctly positioned.

Pass. The lead has been significantly improved, and now complies fully with Wikipedia:LEAD. The article is also far better organised, and complies with the recommended structure from Wikipedia:MEDORDER (where specific headings are not mandatory).

2a

Pass. Nearly all content has an inline citation to back it up. All citations are inline, with all being formatted correctly as per Wikipedia:FNNR. Following Wikipedia:Be bold, I fixed a single incorrectly formatted date. Bibeyjj (talk) 17:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

2b

Hold. The vast majority of the 216 references are to reliable sources. I am particularly pleased with the number of references to secondary sources and tertiary sources. A summary of all 204 references can be found below - this may not be completely accurate, but hopefully gives an impression of the types of sources used, and how many need to be more carefully considered for access and reliability. There are a number of minor queries with references. I am sure that these can be resolved quickly, as they are mainly issues with access to the original sources (for verification). Bibeyjj (talk) 09:14, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Reference Summary

#	Type of Reference	Numbers
52	primary source	12, 15, 16, 26b, 26c, 27, 34, 35c, 35d, 48, 52, 61, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 71, 72, 74, 79, 81, 82, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 101, 130, 146, 147, 149, 151, 159, 164, 167, 168, 170, 174, 175, 176, 177, 179, 181, 182, 183, 187, 188, 196, 200
55	secondary source	7, 24, 25a, 25b, 25c, 25d, 26a, 26d, 28, 35a, 35b, 38, 42, 43, 44, 49, 51, 53, 57, 58, 59, 62, 63, 78, 83, 92, 95, 96, 98, 99, 100, 102, 103, 104, 105, 107, 108, 110, 111, 123, 125, 126, 128, 134, 138, 160, 163, 169, 173, 178, 190, 191, 197, 201, 204
56	tertiary source	5, 6, 10, 13, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 29, 30, 31, 33, 39, 45, 54, 55, 60, 75, 76, 77, 97, 106, 109, 113, 114, 116, 117, 119, 121, 122, 127, 129, 133, 135, 142, 143, 148, 150, 152, 153, 154, 156, 157, 162, 171, 184, 185, 186, 189, 192, 193, 194, 195, 199
32	reliable website	1, 2, 3, 4, 11, 14, 25, 26, 32, 35, 37, 40, 41, 46, 47, 56, 70, 73, 80, 84, 85, 86, 112, 118, 124, 137, 144, 139, 161, 165, 166, 202
21	less reliable website	8, 9, 17, 36, 50, 93, 94, 115, 120, 131, 132, 136, 140, 141, 145, 155, 158, 172, 180, 198, 203

Accessibility Queries

Action	Reference	Query
Y	11	Essentially a dead link.
Y	19	Needs formatting.
Y	20	Needs formatting.
Y	21	Needs formatting.
Y	22	Needs formatting.
Y	23	Needs formatting.
Y	31	Needs to link to a specific article.
Y	44	Could not be accessed at all.
Y	82	Could not be accessed at all.
Y	97	Needs formatting.
Y	113	Could not be accessed at all.
Y	116, 117	Identical.
Y	119 (now 100)	A link can be found at: https://books.google.com/books?id=JX__lLLXFHkC&newbks=0&printsec=frontcover&pg=PA167&dq=ct+can+have+a+number+of+artifacts&hl=en
Y	126	Could not be accessed at all.
Y	150	Needs formatting.
Y	157	Needs formatting.
Y	189	Needs formatting.

Reference Quality Queries

Action	Reference	Query
Y	36 (now 33)	ScienceDirect summary pages are not specific enough a reference, and can change. It may be better to replace it with https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-63600-3.00010-6, which is one of the references on the ScienceDirect page.
Y	50 (now 47)	Whilst the current link is to a corporate website, the original study it mentions can be found at https://www.jacc.org/doi/full/10.1016/j.jcmg.2016.01.017, so may be included as well as the current reference.
Y	86	Needs to be evaluated for quality - I was unsure of this one.
Y	93 (now 134)	Whilst the current link is to a blog-style news entry, the original study it mentions can be found at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mayocp.2015.07.011, so may be included as well as the current reference.
Y	95	Letter to the editor, so needs to be evaluated for quality.
Y	131 (now 160)	ScienceDirect summary pages are not specific enough a reference, and can change. You may consider simply removing it (as there are other references for the statement), or you may consider replacing it with https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-52356-1.00032-3, which is one of the references on the ScienceDirect page.
Y	134	Needs to be evaluated for quality - I was unsure of this one.
Y	155 (now 81)	ScienceDirect summary pages are not specific enough a reference, and can change. It may be better to replace it with https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-53485-9.00001-5, which is one of the references on the ScienceDirect page (note that for "Windowing", this says that values of "less than -20" are displayed as black, not "less than 0").
Y	158 (now 84)	This reference to a corporate website is probably not reliable enough. The content in the article already has another reference, which is sufficient.
Y	172 (now 98)	This links to Encyclopaedia Britannica, and so is queried in relation to its listing on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. On balance, it is useful for this article, so can stay.
Y	180 (now 107)	ScienceDirect summary pages are not specific enough a reference, and can change. It may be better to replace it with https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012077790-7/50016-3, which is one of the references on the ScienceDirect page.

I have checked the "less reliable" websites for quality. I felt it helpful to split reference queries into accessibility and quality. All of the primary, secondary, tertiary, and reliable website references have been assessed as good quality. Some of the "less reliable" websites have presented queries that can be easily resolved, often by citing a more reliable source they are based on. Sorry that there is so much to do! Bibeyjj (talk) 11:01, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Pass. Thank you Iflaq for your tireless work to resolve queries with references. I'm satisfied that all citations are to Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and that they are now accessible. Bibeyjj (talk) 17:24, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

2c

Pass. As far as I can tell, all of the references are well represented in the article. The article is well covered with inline citations, so no significant section can be challenged as being "original". Bibeyjj (talk) 22:31, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

2d

Pass. I have run the whole article through a plagiarism checker, and have found no matches. References are not directly copied, and the general following of Wikipedia:SUMMARY avoids any overt copied material. Bibeyjj (talk) 22:38, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

3a

Pass. Nearly all of the major aspects of "Medical tests" from Wikipedia:MEDORDER are discussed. The only significant topics not receiving a mention are "Preparation" (patient experience) and "Veterinary use", which are minor considerations for future improvement. Apart from these, I cannot identify any major gaps in the article's general coverage. Bibeyjj (talk) 18:33, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

3b

Pass. Follows Wikipedia:Article size on length, and links to a few smaller related articles such as Industrial CT scanning and X-ray microtomography - the level of detail is good, and the significant length is not an issue. I am also satisfied that the article handles all topics in sufficient detail and generally follows Wikipedia:SUMMARY. Bibeyjj (talk) 18:39, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

4

Pass. Follows Wikipedia:NPOV, handling the few sensitive issues in the article (such as cancer and campaigns) well. Bibeyjj (talk) 18:27, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

5

Pass. There have been no edit wars in the past 3 months. The talk page, and the most recent archive page, shows no unresolved issues. Bibeyjj (talk) 16:09, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

6a

Pass. All images are either Public Domain or available under a suitable Creative Commons license (a full breakdown is listed below). Every image has been checked for copyright issues, with none found. Every image has an attributable author. Bibeyjj (talk) 16:25, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

License Summary

#	License
2	Public Domain
3	CC0
1	CC BY 2.0
1	CC BY-SA 2.1 JP
1	CC BY 2.5
2	CC BY-SA 3.0
6	CC BY-SA 4.0

6b

Pass. All of the current images are appropriate. An image of contrast medium injection in "Contrast reactions" would be good. All images are captioned well, with perfect spelling. Bibeyjj (talk) 16:16, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• Added a direct pdf reference to ACR webpage pdf. Reference no. 86. American College of Radiology is one of the notable associations related to the radiology and there data is authentic.
• Reference number 82 is accessible via achieve link. I had a problem too with opening it but it opened by allowing cookies in browser settings. Iflaq ^(talk) 13:21, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
• Changed url for reference number 95 to more reliable source. Iflaq ^(talk) 14:45, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
• Added a better reference for reference no. 113 Iflaq ^(talk) 14:46, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
• Reference number 126 is also accessible via archive link and there is also a redirect link to download the material from the website page.Iflaq ^(talk) 14:53, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
• Added a better reference for reference no. 97 and formatted.Iflaq ^(talk) 15:04, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
• Combined reference no. 116 and 117 as they were identical. Current reference number 174. Iflaq ^(talk) 17:53, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
• Replaced reference no. 194 (previously 145) with new references as it could not be accessed. Iflaq ^(talk) 21:45, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
• I was not sure about the quality of reference no. 163 (previously 134) so I have changed it with a new reference from book. Iflaq ^(talk) 21:58, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
• Streak artifact issue also resolved per suggestions. Iflaq ^(talk) 09:33, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• Removed content from working that was already present in 'Interpretation of results' section. Iflaq ^(talk) 18:13, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Concluding Summary

Pass. Hi Iflaq! Congratulations - CT scan has passed Good Article Review. I see that this article is the first you have put forward for GAR, and also one of your most significant contributions to Wikipedia. I also see that you are part of the Radiology Task Force, and that this is only the second radiology-related article to pass GAR. As such, I wanted to thank you for all of the work you have put into this article - the improvements through this GAR really show, and you have worked tirelessly to make the recommended improvements. You must be very proud to get such a large and significant article to such a good standard. I am satisfied that all 12 criteria are now met. Hoping you are well, Bibeyjj (talk) 20:35, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

@Bibeyjj, Thankyou for being so nice, It's as much your victory as mine. I was really pleased to work with you. I will be looking forward to see you in future. Till then stay healthy and Happy editing. Iflaq ^(talk) 04:50, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Follow-up Queries

Congratulations on achieving the good article status. However I think there are still quite some improvements to be made to the article and it may have passed a bit too easily. For example there is no information at all about CT guided procedures, such as CT guided biopsies, drainage, tumor ablation or intraoperative CT. Also CT perfusion imaging, which has become very important for stroke diagnosis and treatment is not mentioned at all. Furthermore the article contains several tendentious sentences such as "Perhaps persuaded by fear, patients and doctors sometimes agree to an intensive schedule of CT scans". There are also many smaller omissions and inaccuracies; for example the most common presentation is probably thick 3-5mm slices and image resolution is usually lower rather than higher when compared to radiography. I will try to help with some small improvements here and there. --WS (talk) 18:35, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Wouterstomp! As the original article reviewer, I wanted to thank you for identifying these issues, which are almost entirely related to criterion 3b. Thank you also for taking some time to help to further improve the article. I just wanted to respond to some of the specific queries you raised. Bibeyjj (talk) 08:33, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• There are 6 references to describe stereotactic surgery in the section "Head", so there is information on intraoperative CT (still a very rare procedure considering the radiation dose)
• You raise a good point about the lack of information on biopsies, drainage, and ablation.
• I have added a section "CT perfusion imaging" to "Types", with 3 references to describe the specific indications and process.
• The "tendentious" sentence was not queried in my original 1a comments because it has 5 reliable references to back it up, all of which were checked. These references all support the statement, and the specific wording about "fear" and "intensive schedules".
• Thin slice is already mentioned in "Presentation" in "Interpretation of results" mentions that thin slice is 3mm or less, but I agree that information on thick slice (and its higher usage) would be helpful.

Hi Wouterstomp & Bibeyjj, Thankyou for raising these issues. I agree we still can add more content as mentioned such a CT guided FNA, CT perfusion, CT Myelography or other procedures. I will be working on these topics in few days as I am currently busy with my exams. With advances the slice thickness is reduced, Thought we can use slice thickness of less than 1mm also but the subject will change to HRCT (High resolution computed tomography). It is a general idea about the slice thickness that we use in CT. For Neck CT we use a slice thickness of 1- 1.5 mm and for CT abdomen we use a slice thickness of 3-5 mm. (Ref. CT and MRI Protocol book by Satish K Bhargava). In most of the procedures slice thickness of 3-5 mm is used. Thankyou. Iflaq ^(talk) 11:40, 12 April 2021 (UTC)