Talk:Catecholaminergic polymorphic ventricular tachycardia/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Bryanrutherford0 (talk · contribs) 02:46, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

• I'l review this one. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 02:46, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing this Bryan, it's been sat on the pile for quite a while! I'll try to get through it in the next couple of days. PeaBrainC (talk) 04:55, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   I've copyedited the article, and it is at an appropriate prose standard. It complies with all the relevant sections of MoS, excepting the lead section. MoS says that an article of this length should have a lead section of "two or three paragraphs." The lead should be consolidated into at most three paragraphs (I might just combine the final two existing paragraphs into one).  Done

   Also, I notice that the article says "repolarization" at one point but "repolarisation" at another. Choose your preferred spelling convention and implement it across the text (the rest seems to me to be in American English, so I'd go with the 'z').  Done

   The table of genetic causes should be moved up to the beginning of its section (immediately beneath the heading "Molecular genetics"), aligned right, and made narrower by wrapping the "Notes" column at half the width. This would be a more standard layout and much less disruptive to the text of the body.

    Not done - I'm afraid I'm no expert with wikitables, I had a read of Help:Table but struggled a little. If you feel strongly that the table should be reformatted then please go ahead and adjust it, I wasn't quite sure exactly what you meant or how it was to be achieved. However I do feel that some text immediately prior to the table would be useful, particularly if it's been moved to a Causes section as your recommend below - may be not be immediately obvious what this table represents otherwise. Thoughts?

   Alright, I've worked out the general form of it. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 00:03, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

   Finally, MoS says that "See also" sections should generally not contain links that are found in the article's body or navboxes, and that's almost exclusively what this one does contain. As far as I can see, only "Andersen-Tawil syndrome" is not already present elsewhere. I'm not sure this article actually needs a "See also"; if you can just move that mention of Andersen-Tawil syndrome into the body, then the "See also" should be eliminated entirely.  Done

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   The article has a reference list and citations for its claims. Earwig's tool shows no sign of plagiarism from online sources. The more detailed claims in the infobox should have citations (just duplicate the ones used in the body), specifically the numbers under "prognosis" and "frequency". Done

   Right away I notice a strange claim in the "Sympathetic denervation" section: that the purpose of cardiac sympathectomy is to "disrupt the supply of adrenaline to the heart". Stranger still, this section also refers to the "sympathetic nervous system which supplies adrenaline to the body's organs", which is nonsense. Nerves transmit signals; they don't "deliver" hormones. Adrenaline, like other hormones, is delivered to tissues by the blood. Left cardiac sympathectomy as a treatment for CPVT doesn't appear to have anything to do with adrenaline; the surgery's function is to disrupt the sympathetic nerves' stimulating effect on the heart's pulse rate and force, which tends to exacerbate this sort of ventricular tachycardia once it begins. This section needs to be totally rewritten in a way that is medically sound and supported by the sources.

    Done I appreciate that you feel the wording could be improved but 'nonsense' is a little strong. The sympathetic nervous system uses catecholamines, mainly noradrenaline, as a neurotransmitter. In addition to the circulating catecholamines released by sources such as the adrenal glands, in my opinion it was reasonably accurate to state that the sympathetic nervous system is supplying adrenaline to the heart. However, I concede that the phrasing could be improved to make this clearer and have amended the text and added another cite to back this up. Do you think the rewording is better? PeaBrainC (talk) 07:01, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

   That is much more clear! I apologize for being perhaps excessively forceful in the previous comment. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 00:03, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

   The citation format should be standardized throughout the article; for example, currently we have some citations reading like "Liu N, Napolitano C, Priori S" and others reading like "Liu, Nian; Colombi, Barbara; Raytcheva-Buono, Emilia V.; Bloise, Raffaella; Priori, Silvia G." It's fine to either spell out the given names or not, and any clear style of punctuation is fine, we just need to be consistent. I would just use citation templates throughout to make consistency easy, but do as you think best. Likewise, I see one citation to Circulation, another to Circulation Journal, another to Circulation Research, and another to Circulation: Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology; if any two of these are the same publication, then they should be harmonized. To prevent that sort of confusion, I would also wikilink any journals that have Wikipedia articles, but that's not required to pass this review. Please hyphenate all un-hyphenated ISBNs (you can use this tool). There's a template issue with the use of "others=" in the Baars et al. source. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 16:49, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

    Done Wikilinked to journal titles although some are now redlinks - hope that's ok. FYI Circulation, Circulation Journal, Circulation Research, and Circulation: Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology along with several more with Circulation in the name are all separate journals. PeaBrainC (talk) 02:12, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

   Regarding the sources: this is nitpicking, but in the final sentence of the first paragraph of "Signs and symptoms", the citation says that "approximately 30%" of patients have a relevant family history, which is not quite the same as "a third"; switch to agree with the source. We need a citation at the end of the second paragraph of "Signs and symptoms". I'm a little concerned about the opening sentence of "Diagnosis"; I'd like to see it made more concrete and specific, and then accompanied by a citation for whatever more specific claim it becomes. I understand that the first paragraph of "Treatment" is essentially a summary of what's about to be explained in greater detail with sources, but it would still be nice to have a citation. In the second sentence of "Medication", replace "adrenaline" with "catecholamines" or perhaps "adrenaline and other catecholamines". In "History", if it matters that readers know who "Reid" is, then more context and a wikilink should be added; if it doesn't matter, then "by Reid" should be removed. The same goes for Coumel and Leenhardt shortly thereafter. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 16:49, 7 May 2019 (UTC)  Done

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The article seems to cover the major aspects recommended by the medical style guide without straying into excessive detail or trivia.

   To clarify the article's organization and to better follow the medical style guide, the level-3 header "Molecular genetics" should be replaced by a level-2 header "Causes" (the only causes are genetic), and the two subheadings should be elevated from level 4 to level 3. The flow of ideas would make better sense with "Prognosis" immediately after "Treatment", and "Epidemiology" after those.  Done

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   The tone is appropriately neutral and scientific.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   The article has appropriate and informative illustrations. I have a question about a license: on File:Labelled DDD ICD.jpg, you (the nominator) seem to have uploaded this x-ray as "own work", but what is the source? Do you mean that you personally took this x-ray, then scanned it and uploaded it? If not, where did you get this image?

   This is an X-ray of a patient who I implanted a defibrillator in, I anonymised and exported the image from the hospital's radiology viewing system, processed, cropped, and labelled the image, and uploaded it. Whilst I didn't actually take the X-ray, I felt that that I had enough involvement for this to count as my work, at least in part. PeaBrainC (talk) 04:55, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

   Now that I investigate, it seems that under US copyright law medical images may not be copyrighted, so the original x-ray is in the public domain, and your processing work means that any part of the work that does have creative content is indeed yours. Looks like the license is good! -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 00:03, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Lots of good content here; with a bit of polish, it should make a Good Article shortly. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 04:08, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

   I appreciate the nominator's responsive editing! I still need to dig through all the sourcing, but the other parts of the article are in good shape now. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 00:03, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

   Good stuff. Thanks for adjusting the table formatting, I understand what you mean now and agree it looks better. Good info on medical images - my understanding of image policy is very superficial so that link has been helpful. PeaBrainC (talk) 01:49, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

   Great work! This article now meets the standard and is promoted to GA. Thank you for sharing your expertise with the encyclopedia! -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 14:37, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

   Thanks Bryan, appreciate your time and help with this! PeaBrainC (talk) 20:28, 8 May 2019 (UTC)