Talk:Familial aortic dissection

note

Make sure to add the websites to your source citing, so that viewers can locate the source you used. Also, make sure to have eight paragraphs.

(Bleonard4 (talk) 03:39, 22 April 2012 (UTC))

Very informational page. I suggest putting bullet points into some of the longer sections to make it easier on the readers, it can be a bit daunting to read long paragraphs throughout the entire article. Make sure that you include 8 paragraphs! Maybe break the sections you have into smaller ones and add more information. It would be nice if you could add an image or two as well. Marissa.Ray (talk) 04:54, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The page is very informational, which is great, but I found a sentence that might need to be fixed. The sentence I found was: "Mutations in, and or lack of genes encoding for connective tissue components such as collagens, and micro- fibril associated glycoproteins are believed to hold some responsibility for aortic breakdown among the layers comprising the lumen." It sounds like a run on sentence, maybe try and reword it or make it into to separate sentences.

(Arf7 (talk) 20:07, 23 April 2012 (UTC))

Something I saw was the citing; I'm not positive if it's a problem or not but it stuck out to me, you have an area in which many cites come after the sentence and I'm not sure what the cites are specifically referring to because there are so many. (ex:it can occur in the absence of clinical features of Marfan syndrome and of systemic hypertension[2][3][4][5][6]) . Also make sure that in some senstences that you're not capitalizing things that don't need to be capitalized (such as Marfan’s Syndrome, where syndrome doesn't need to be capitalized). I found your article very informative and it gave a lot of good information to the reader. It was easy reading even though you had a lot of terminology in it, it still made it so that the reader with little to no information about this topic previously could read it and get a good grasp on what you were talking about, great job! 149.84.140.209 (talk) 20:11, 23 April 2012 (UTC)kmf10

This page had a lot of very useful and interesting information. However there are a few areas that were a bit hazy to me. The biggest thing I can think of is the different types of FAD. It might be helpful to make the different types into their own small section which sort of bullets the important concepts and points associated with them. That way it breaks up the long paragraphs a bit and makes the specific types of FAD easier to find in the body of writing. (Boborb44 (talk) 20:07, 23 April 2012 (UTC))

I noticed that there are many small typo-type errors in the writing, such as "Depending on the location of the tare.." which I believe should be tear, and there also seem to be some problems with the internal links, since some words seem to be repeated twice in a row. If you go back and fix the type errors I think the article is in great shape. HopeBarnum (talk) 17:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with everyone above that the article does supply useful and interesting information. There were some confusing areas and some typos within the article. In the intro section, maybe you could explain what "dissection" refers to in the context of aortic dissection......the link you have provided only explains dissection that is performed on dead humans/animals in a biological setting. The second sentence needs capitalization. In the third sentence, are you refering to high systolic pressure or just systolic pressure in general? In the fifth sentence, you mention ischemia. Ischemia to what, the aorta, other tissues, etc? The seventh sentence.....I think immediate surgery "has" the best prognosis instead of "is." In characteristics, maybe make the first sentence into two after, "cardiovascular system." It seems like a run-on sentence. In the second paragraph, maybe start the sentence with, The Svensson system and then say what the classes are based on instead of starting the sentence off with that. In the third paragraph, I don't think inflammatory disease needs capitalization. In diagnosis section the word echocardiography is written twice. Also, the second and third paragraphs don't really describe diagnosis. Maybe they should be put in the characteristic section. In treatment section, "to" is written twice after "The goal is to merely to prevent..." Can you explain where the biomarkers come from? Are they found in a blood test? The last sentence confused me regarding the blockage of epinephrine. Is that accomplished by the statins/beta-blockers? What is TEE? Other than these minor things, I think you guys did a great job!! (user:HeatherCaputo/HeatherCaputo) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heather Caputo (talk • contribs) 15:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Familial aortic dissection/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jmh649 (talk · contribs) 18:51, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments

A couple of comments:

1. References need consistent formatting. Please see other good articles such as common cold to see how this is done.

Will comment more once this is addressed. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:51, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Just in case, this essay says consistent formatting isn't a requirement (in the "mistakes to avoid" section). Biosthmors (talk) 22:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree, citation formatting isn't a GA requirement, but it's nice to have them formatted consistently anyway, so I did so. Sasata (talk) 16:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Part of this is to see if the student in question is going to address any of the concerns raised in this review. I check to make sure that references are appropriate. If they are not formatted properly doing so is much more difficult. My thanks to Sasata.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:56, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Further comments

1. Could use sections on Epidemiology, History, and Society and Culture as outlined at WP:MEDMOS.
2. With respect to "characteristics" these are not characteristics "There are various mechanisms by which the medial layers of the lumen are stressed and eventually torn.[9] Once torn these areas begin to fill with blood and become susceptible to aneurysm formation. Depending on the location of the tear, FAD normally affects the ascending or descending aorta, where the primary characteristic of a bulge can be seen. This bulge is the result of the creation of a false lumen due to the vast amount of blood seepage from the aortas and surrounding veins.[10] In some cases it is not uncommon to see degeneration in the ascending and descending aorta and the atrioventricular and semilunar valves due to elastolysis or breakdown and loss of elastic fibers. Mutations in, and or lack of genes encoding for connective tissue components such as collagens, and micro- fibril associated glycoproteins are believed to hold some responsibility for aortic breakdown among the layers comprising the lumen.[9]" Would be better in a section on pathophysiology. Characteristics means what sort of signs and symptom do people with the condition have. A brief discussion of the signs of connective tissue diseases would be good.
3. Per "Biomarkers lend a quick way to diagnose dissection when time is of the essence." the ref says "Future advances in this field include biomarkers in the early diagnosis of acute aortic dissection" and the paper says "Thus, we do not currently have an assay that has adequate sensitivity and specificity and allows an appropriate time window for the rapid diagnosis of acute aortic dissection." These markers are not typically used in clinical practice and this discussion belongs in a section on Research not one on diagnosis.
4. In the treatment section it refers to Type 1 and Type 2 FAD and the diagnosis section refers to Class 1 2 and 3. Are you referring to the Stanford and DeBakey classifications?
5. This content would probably be best merged into the article on aortic dissection as this is just one cause of this disease.

Will give editors some time to address these concerns.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:01, 30 April 2012 (UTC)