Talk:Magnetic resonance imaging/GA1

GA Review

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

I'll have a go at this. Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 12:03, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments

• Physics: I think you should explain in a sentence or two how the magnetic field causes the protons to oscillate and hence form something that can be detected.

• Components - needs to be cited.

• Components diagram - needs much bigger labels, they are hopelessly small.

• Safety - last sentence is uncited.

• Safety - should mention and cite projectile risk, nerve stimulation.

• Image "Examples of T1 weighted, T2 weighted and PD weighted MRI scans" is effectively 3 images but is very small. Suggest use |upright=2 or similar scaling factor to make individual images readable. Could add a comment beside the image to explain why we've done that.

  added upright=2 parameter. I don't think that a comment is necessary.--Kostas20142 (talk) 19:13, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

• There is a little overlinking: for instance, magnetic field and hydrogen are both linked twice in Construction and physics.

• Contrast agents doesn't say how these things are used. Are they swallowed, injected, infused by venous drip or what?

please note that this is already mentioned at mechanism section.--Kostas20142 (talk) 17:26, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, it was misplaced. I've moved it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:45, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

• Economics is far too US-centric. Suggest cut down the American coverage and say a little about the situation in other regions.

• Economics prices need to have the date at which each price was correct.

• Sequences - appears to be ambiguous, with 2 definitions in the first sentence. Better explain a little, and cite.

• The See also list is a little out of control. The glosses (mostly in parentheses) should go. Some topics like Medical imaging, NMR, Relaxation, etc should go as they're linked in the text (please check all in the list). Molecular breast imaging is a dab page, so remove. The specialist physics topics are best handled by the subsidiary article on NMR physics, so I suggest we remove all the quantum mechanics, RF shielding, particle imaging etc.

  Removed them, and some more that were already linked in article. I feel that the section is ok now --Kostas20142 (talk) 11:05, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

• Ettrig has noted in an edit to the lead that MRI has uses outside medicine. There are I think two possible valid responses to this. One is for these other uses to be covered in the text, and cited. The other is to note that the article is sharply focussed on Clinical MRI and to agree to rename it (immediately after the GAN is closed) to Clinical magnetic resonance imaging. I'd favour the latter. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:32, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Organisation

* I'm not convinced that the current structure:

1. Construction and physics
2. Safety
3. T1 and T2
4. Contrast agents
5. History
6. Economics
7. By organ or system
8. Sequences
9. Other specialized configurations

makes a lot of sense (maybe you can explain its logic to me if you disagree). I'd suggest the History should go first, then we should have a section on Mechanism, to include subsections Construction and Physics, T1 and T2. Then a section on Usage, to include subsections By organ or system, Contrast agents, Sequences, Other specialized configurations. Then Economics, Safety. Wouldn't that work better?

Unfortunately many articles start with History. But this is not a rule. To me it is obvious that History is NOT the priority interest of the reader. I would say the typical reader primarily wants to know what it is and how it works. So placement of History is quite OK. --Ettrig (talk) 10:58, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

In the middle? A curious position. As the reviewer, I'm saying it must go either at the start or at the end. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:01, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, i think it would be OK to go after mechanism. and move safety as well after economics. Why don't you want the section to be somewhere in the middle? --Kostas20142 (talk) 11:30, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Because it's peculiar, and unusual. I think when you restructure the article you'll see that it's misplaced. Let's just put it at the end, please. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:01, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Did some changes, do you find the structure ok?? --Kostas20142 (talk) 11:13, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Entirely in the right direction. I've grouped the sections as I'd suggested, I think you'll see it's clearer but happy to discuss. We aren't at final structure, since the items below (of course) remain to be addressed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:25, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not convinced, either, that one-sentence sections in By organ or system are satisfactory. Suggest a little detail for Cardiovascular and Musculoskeletal to make them worthwhile sections.

• The sudden dive into extreme technicality in the "Overview table" in Sequences is a bit uncomfortable. The material is repeated from the main article, MRI sequences, which isn't the right way to handle a 'main' link. I suggest we remove the table and write a paragraph or two with one or two images only (the most clearly distinct, perhaps) to explain what the idea of sequences is all about, with the best secondary sources.

• The 'Other specialized configurations' is similarly far more technical than the rest of the article, and very long. If it's the case that these are rather specialized and rare techniques, then they might go in a subsidiary list article and be summarized here with a 'main' link and a paragraph or two. If they're really rather important then they had better stay but be explained without too much techspeak (heteronuclear magnetization transfer MRI that would image the high-gyromagnetic-ratio hydrogen nucleus instead of the low-gyromagnetic-ratio nucleus that is bonded to the hydrogen atom). That level of specialised language sits rather oddly, by the way, with the absence of any explanation of what the hydrogen atoms are up to in the Construction and physics section.

• These changes will dictate some rewriting of the lead section, which should simply and clearly summarize the text.

References

• There are six citation needed tags in the text.

• There are one or two refs marked Page needed.

• There's a dead link in a paper. You may use this URL, or better (and more permanent), find its DOI and cite it from there using the DOI tool.

  Cited it using doi --Kostas20142 (talk) 10:45, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

• There is ridiculous overcitation at the end of Neuroimaging (refs [44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57]). I'd suggest two or three at most, and these should be reliable secondary sources.

  3 left --Kostas20142 (talk) 19:40, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks. Do note for the future that the process is that you make the change and note it here, and I strike my own comment if I'm satisfied (it's a vital 3rd step). Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:25, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Summary

• There's a fine article in here somewhere, but at the moment the text varies wildly from ignoring technical explanation to extremely complicated. The use of subsidiary articles is not fully worked out. The referencing is not wholly satisfactory, with gaps and overcitation. Once these issues are resolved, it'll be a worthy GA. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:18, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Nom is unable to work on this just now, so we have agreed to close this now. I'm available to continue reviewing the article when anybody feels like resubmitting it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:34, 13 December 2017 (UTC)