Talk:Pathophysiology of hypertension

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pathophysiology of hypertension/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Redlinux (talk) 12:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Very good article, but I can help You a little with few items, which IMHO should be improved (and that's the sense of a review):

• I personally miss some subjects:
  • like the neurovascular compression of the medulla oblongata by vessels (like art. cerebellaris ant. inf., e.a.)
  • maybe in a "good article" the genetic mutations should (at least in part) be specified (GNB 3-825T ...)?
  • and maybe also the pathophysiology of the reasons for secondary hypertension should be added
• "... which is a chronic disease characterized by elevation ..." (Introduction) - hypertension is not a disease, but a symptom and an additional riskfactor.
• "... and to the size of the vascular compartment. ..." (Introduction) - not just to the size, but also to elastisity ("air-camber function") - in the next sentence You are describing the "peripheral resistance", hmm.

At the moment I would prefer "aspects of the regulation of blood pressure" or so, as title of the article. But nevertheless, it's already a good article. Greetings Redlinux (talk) 12:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the time you spent reviewing the article, and I will be working with you on promoting the article to the GA status starting now, Thank you again. MaenK.A._Talk 19:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

About addressing the pathophysiology of the secondary causes, do you suggest that i separate the article into two parts?? primary and secondary?? MaenK.A._Talk 21:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Hallo madhero, separating the articles might be the easiest possibility - but I'd suggest to include the additional subjects (maybe in a short form - if there are referring "main"-articles) into the article itself ... for instance using the topic "secondary hypertension". Greetings Redlinux^···→ 21:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

GA criteria

This nomination seems to have been orphaned, as the last comments by the first reviewer were over a month ago. The first comments didn't appear to match the article up against the six GA criteria, so I will do that here.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   The prose is a bit rough and could use a good working over by an experienced copy editor. There's a lot of little things, like places where sentences are ended with a period and a new sentence begins without a capital letter, or no space between sentences. A good sprinkling of commas here and there could help some sentence readability.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Citations seem fine and they are formatted and readable. Not sure if it's necessary to link to wiki-articles on journal titles (hence all the red links in the references section), but that's not a critical issue for GA.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   I don't think that the article is very well organized, and the lead section doesn't really introduce the three subsections very well. A good lead section should introduce the topic, summarize the article, and connect the summary directly with the major sections below. For example, I see that the lead introduces essential and secondary hypertension, but the main sections really don't connect the causes to either of these really well. I am also concerned with the rather large number of citations used in the lead section -- while some are acceptable here, since the lead should be a summary, the presence of lots of citations in the lead is an indication that information is not being summarized, but covered as it were in a main section. It might help to review WP:LEAD for more help in improving this section.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   I don't see any blatant WP:NPOV violations, but I am a bit concerned with the opening statement of, "The pathophysiology of hypertension is an area of active research,..." (and "area of active research" is repeated again in the second paragraph). It seems to me like it's obvious that it's an area of active research, and instead, the lead should focus on the pathophysiological causes of hypertension. Such a broad statement about being an "area of active research" sounds like you might be writing a grant proposal instead of an encyclopedia article, and, if used, should definitely be cited with current citations.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No stability issues that I can see.

6. 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):

   There is only one image in the article, and it meets the criteria.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   As of right now, I don't think that the article meets all six GA criteria. I think what we have here is a set of "good notes" on the subject, but those notes need to be organized better to build a "good article". I think it's best to leave this article on hold for about another week while the issues are addressed. Dr. Cash (talk) 21:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with You - the point "Broad in its coverage" is very problematic here, as I pointed out already Redlinux^···→ 13:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

No article change in two weeks. One of you can safely fail it at this point. Wizardman 15:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Still no changes despite the writer editing, yet not to this page, and two people reviewing this. Article failed. Wizardman 21:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pathophysiology of hypertension. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5kGLMdqnn to http://www.cvphysiology.com/Blood%20Pressure/BP006.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Alternative definition of primary/idiopathic/essential hypertension and its sodium/potassium ratio etiology

The current statement at the end of the first paragraph:

"The pathophysiology of essential hypertension remains an area of active research, with many theories that are not mutually exclusive."

is unsupported by references, so I removed it. The statement:

"Essential hypertension indicates that no specific medical cause can be found to explain the hypertension." is likewise not supported by references, and reflects one of the definitions found in the literature. So I altered the text to indicate this and added a section on the sodium/potassium ratio etiological hypothesis of essential/primary/idiopathic hypertension, with a reference to epidemiological research which supports this. I made similar changes to the Pathophysiology section of the main Hypertension article. Ideally I would update the article on essential hypertension too. The whole notion of "primary" hypertension having no known cause, and then of discussing causes, which is hardly any different from pathophysiology, seems confusing to me, but has an historical basis. However, if some researchers demonstrate convincingly that they have an explanation for this majority of hypertension cases, then the "unexplained" definition should no longer apply. Robin Whittle (talk) 06:19, 26 April 2017 (UTC)