Talk:Diaphragmatic rupture/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Bibeyjj (talk · contribs) 11:19, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Opening Summary

Hi aeschyIus! I'm happy to take on the review of Diaphragmatic rupture. I remember reviewing and promoting the article Urinothorax which you nominated and worked on in February.

I will be using Template:GABox to keep track of general progress. A comment on each criteria, and whether it has been passed or failed, 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) 11:19, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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. The prose is generally very readable to a broad audience, with good simplifications of certain terminology. The prose is not repetitive, and the spelling is perfect. There are a few queries raised below, primarily relating to grammar and clarity. Bibeyjj (talk) 19:12, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Queries
Action	Section	Current	Proposed
Y	Lead	respiration	This is currently linked to Respiration (physiology), but would probably be better linked to Breathing.
Y	Lead	and surgical techniques such as laparotomy.	This is fine as is. On my first read, it took me a few seconds that this refers to exploratory surgery, and it might be best to clarify this.
Y	Signs and symptoms	Pain, orthopnea, ... may occur, and coughing is another sign.	This doesn't seem to read well. Maybe "Pain, and orthopnea"?
Y	Causes	The injury	Would it be worth saying "Diaphragmatic rupture" instead of "The injury"?
Y	Causes	It has occurred from thoracentesis or radiofrequency ablation.	It might be more appropriate to say "and from radiofrequency ablation."
N	Diagnosis	Thoracoscopic and laparoscopic methods	These specialist terms would benefit from links, especially as this is their first use in the prose.
Y	Diagnosis	Computed tomography	As "CT scan" or "CT" are the more commonly used terms, it may be better to use these instead of the full name.
Y	Diagnosis	persons	Is "patients" more appropriate here? "Persons" is correct.
Y	Treatment	to reinstate the abdominal organs to the original place.	It would be worth noting that these are "herniated" organs (as herniation is not a guarantee), and to use "their" rather than "the".
Y	Complications	It occurs when the size of the injury increases.	What is It?
Y	Complications	trauma center	This term may be worth a link.
Y	History	first description of diaphragmatic rupture, in a French artillery captain who had been shot eight months before his death from complications of the rupture.	This doesn't read well to me. Was the shooting 8 months before death, or the diagnosis (presumably the former)? This may be worth rewording.

Done aeschyIus (talk) 12:11, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pass. Thank you for resolving these minor points - I'm sure that both of us are happy with the prose now! Bibeyjj (talk) 15:53, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1b

Hold. The article mostly follows Manual of Style policies. There are a few minor queries to resolve with regards to the lead section and with some of the "footer" sections. Bibeyjj (talk) 20:35, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Manual of Style Guidelines
Guideline	Compliance	Comments
WP:LEAD	Partial.	All of the information in the lead is correct and mentioned in the prose, with no controversial claims - I therefore wonder if it truly needs inline citations (MOS:CITELEAD tends to prefer as few inline citations as possible). The lead is a good length, and certainly gives a good overview, albeit in an order which is a bit different to WP:MEDORDER (this is a minor knit-pick). It emphasises the most important points. It formats prose correctly, and the alternative names are well handled.
WP:LAYOUT	Partial.	The article is well sectioned and subsectioned. The absence of a "See also" section is notable, especially considering that articles such as Diaphragmatic hernia would be particularly important to link to in this section. Template:Commons category is currently not used in "External links".
WP:MEDORDER	Good.	The headings are all correct, with information organised well. I notice that there is limited information on "Special populations" and "Other animals", although this may be resolved at another time.
WP:WORDS	Good.	Word choice is well handled throughout, avoiding introducing bias or confusion.
WP:WAF	N/A	N/A
WP:Embedded lists	Good.	No embedded lists are used, and this is appropriate.

Done - I removed all the inline citations in the lead except the one that cited number of statistical evidence. I also added a "see also" section. aeschyIus (talk) 12:16, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pass. Thank you for resolving these queries thoughtfully. I agree with your choice to keep a reference for the statistic in the lead, and in your choice of "See also" linked articles. Bibeyjj (talk) 15:57, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2a

Pass. All references are formatted in accordance with WP:LAYOUT. The correct templates for reference are used as far as I can see. None of the references are repeated. Bibeyjj (talk) 19:28, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2b

Pass. All of the references are of a good quality. I am happy with the complete reliance on reliable academic journals and textbooks. There are a good number of review articles, which are used extensively. Bibeyjj (talk) 19:36, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Quality
#	Type	References
3	Primary Source	1, 6, 12
6	Secondary Source	2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9
4	Tertiary Source	7, 10, 11, 13
0	Reliable Website
0	Less Reliable Website

2c

Hold. The coverage of inline citations across the article is excellent. Some of the references are very hard to access, so are difficult to check. However, overall the validity of references is good. There are a few small queries to be resolved regarding how reference content is represented in the article. Bibeyjj (talk) 10:31, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Highly used sources (3 times or more): 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12

Well represented: 1, 2 , 3 (b-d), 4 (a, l), 8, 9, 12, 13

Unable to check (trust are well represented): 4 (b-k, m-o), 5, 7, 10, 11

Queries
Action	#	Query
Y	3 (a)	As far as I can tell, this article says that diaphragmatic rupture occurs in 0.5% of people with trauma, not 5%. Is there another statistic I'm missing?
Y	6	Whilst the article is very short, I cannot see a mention of a cut-of blood supply (although the reference does support the idea of interference with breathing).

Bibeyjj,

Done aeschyIus (talk) 18:24, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pass. Thank you for resolving these queries of representation. Given that the references that have been checked are generally well represented, I am happy that reliability is good. Bibeyjj (talk) 18:46, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2d

Hold. Whilst there may be more plagiarism, the detectors I have used have detected the following source which has been copied verbatim. This will need to be referenced, and the text reworded. Bibeyjj (talk) 20:09, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update! I have looked at Talk:Diaphragmatic rupture/GA1 and noted that the previous reviewer believed the source to be a predatory journal that had copied Wikipedia. I will investigate. Bibeyjj (talk) 20:45, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The text was added to Wikipedia mid-July 2008 by Delldot.
The journal article was published on 17 July 2017 by "Open Access Text" - as far as I can tell, this has received widespread suspicion across the academic community for predatory practices.

Based on this, I am happy that there is no plagiarism. I will ask Delldot if they wish to begin the cease and desist process at User talk:Delldot. Bibeyjj (talk) 20:54, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Queries
Action	Source	Text	Wikipedia
N	https://www.doi.org/10.15761/TEC.1000145	A nasogastric tube from the stomach may appear on the film in the chest cavity; this sign is pathognomonic for diaphragmatic rupture, but it is rare. The X-ray is better able to detect the injury when taken from the back with the patient upright, but this is not usually possible because the patient is usually not stable enough; thus it is usually taken from the front with the patient lying supine. Positive pressure ventilation helps keep the abdominal organs from herniating into the chest cavity, but this also can prevent the injury from being discovered on an X-ray... Half of diaphragmatic ruptures that occur on the right side are associated with liver injury. Injuries occurring on the right side are associated with a higher rate of death and more numerous and serious accompanying injuries. Bilateral diaphragmatic rupture, which occurs in 1–2% of ruptures, is associated with a much higher death rate (mortality) than injury that occurs on just one side.	A nasogastric tube from the stomach may appear on the film in the chest cavity; this sign is pathognomonic for diaphragmatic rupture, but it is rare. The X-ray is better able to detect the injury when taken from the back with the patient upright, but this is not usually possible because the patient is usually not stable enough; thus it is usually taken from the front with the patient lying supine. Positive pressure ventilation helps keep the abdominal organs from herniating into the chest cavity, but this also can prevent the injury from being discovered on an X-ray... Half of diaphragmatic ruptures that occur on the right side are associated with liver injury. Injuries occurring on the right are associated with a higher rate of death and more numerous and serious accompanying injuries. Bilateral diaphragmatic rupture, which occurs in 1–2% of ruptures, is associated with a much higher death rate (mortality) than injuries that occur on just one side.

3a

Hold. The article does very well at covering the major aspects of the topic. A few minor queries of clarity have been noted below. One other query I had was the apparent absence of information on "Other animals" - as the subject does occur in animals with diaphragms (all except fish), it would be worth including just a few sentences on animals. This is particularly as one of the radiographs is of a dog! Bibeyjj (talk) 20:42, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Queries
Action	Section	Current	Proposed
N	Signs and symptoms	shoulder or epigastric pain may be present	It may be worth clarifying why these particular types of referred pain occur from a more detailed medical perspective: shoulder pain from referred pain through the phrenic nerve; epigastric pain from referred pain through the greater splanchnic nerve. This is a minor detail, and I will leave it to your judgement how much information to include (probably best to keep it fairly simple).
Y	Mechanism	They can interfere with the return of blood to the heart and prevent the heart from filling effectively	It would be worth explaining how this happens - I presume it is due to external pressure (such as on veins which have a low pressure), although there is currently no reference for this.
Y	Diagnosis	"hump sign", "band sign", "collar sign" and "dangling sign"	These need to be explained - I'm not sure if the original source does explain these or not.

@Bibeyjj, I improved the wording on 1 and 2, and explained 3. I was unable to find any decent sources on animals - they all discussed diaphragmatic hernia. aeschyIus (talk) 01:11, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AeschyIus! Thank you for fully expanding on point 3 and for rewording the other statements. With regards to point 2, I found a reliable reference (https://doi.org/10.21037/atm.2018.05.27) that explains how high intrathoracic pressure (such as that caused by diaphragmatic rupture) raises right atrial pressure, reducing venous return and cardiac output - I wonder if you would consider this.

With regards to rupture in animals, I completely understand your point about the tendency for many sources to talk about diaphragmatic hernia rather than diaphragmatic rupture - I only found 3 talking about diaphragmatic rupture compared to many more talking about diaphragmatic hernia. If I may, I would point to a few references (Diagnosis: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-8261.2003.tb01276.x, Surgical Repair: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-5827.1990.tb00503.x) for you to consider. If this is too much of an ask then I am still happy to pass this criteria, but I think it is worthwhile to consider how to best improve scope (as diaphragmatic rupture does occur in animals). Bibeyjj (talk) 11:00, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bibeyjj, is it ready for GA now? All the issues appear to have been addressed. aeschylus (talk) 15:20, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pass. Thank you for the work you have put in which has broadened the scope of the article and improved on details. Bibeyjj (talk) 17:02, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

3b

Pass. The article follows WP:SUMMARY. The right level of medical detail is used for most of the article. The related condition diaphragmatic hernia is handled to the correct amount of detail. Bibeyjj (talk) 19:21, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

4

Pass. The prose follows WP:NPOV, using neutral language and handling topics well. The topic is not very controversial to begin with. Symptoms and treatments are balanced favourably based on importance. Bibeyjj (talk) 19:14, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

5

Pass. 2 reverted edits in article history, both from IP vandalism. The article has been stable for 4 weeks. Bibeyjj (talk) 11:52, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

6a

Pass. All 5 images use the correct license, and are used acceptably and legally. Bibeyjj (talk) 12:00, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Licenses
Images	License	Appropriate?
File:13017 2010 Article 183 Fig1 HTML (1).jpg	CC BY 2.0	Correct based on the original source at https://doi.org/10.1186/1749-7922-6-3.
File:Diaphragmatic-rupture dog.jpg	CC BY-SA 3.0	Correct based on the uploader User:Uwe Gille. Replaced with commons:File:PMC2739847_1749-7922-4-32-2.png
File:Diaphragmatic rupture spleen herniation.jpg	CC BY 2.0	Correct based on the original source at https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-230X-6-38.
File:PMC3160360 1749-7922-6-23-3.png	CC BY 2.0	Correct based on the original source at https://openi.nlm.nih.gov/detailedresult?img=PMC3160360_1749-7922-6-23-3&query=diaphragmatic%20rupture&it=xg&lic=by&req=4&npos=1.
File:Ambroise Paré.jpg	Public Domain	Verified.
File:PMC2739847_1749-7922-4-32-2.png	CC BY 2.0	Correct based on the original source at https://doi.org/10.1186/1749-7922-4-32

6b

Hold. All 5 images are supportive of the article. Images 2 and 3 would be better situated to the right hand side of the prose with the captions inside the box (the current captions are good) - the other images are well located. Image 2 (x-ray of a dog) would benefit from additions to the captions that clarify what the numbers mean, although this is not essential. Bibeyjj (talk) 19:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bibeyjj, I removed the gallery and added the image to the side. I removed the dog image and added File:PMC2739847_1749-7922-4-32-2.png aeschyIus (talk) 20:14, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pass. Thank you for resolving these queries with images! Bibeyjj (talk) 09:30, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concluding Summary

Pass. Hi AeschyIus! Congratulations - Diaphragmatic rupture has passed Good Article Review. Thank you for the work you have put in to bring the article up to standard. Bibeyjj (talk) 17:08, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]