Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Myocardial infarction/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 20:59, 20 March 2007.

Myocardial infarction

I nominated this article for featured article status because of the exemplary contributions of the community medical editors and contributers in making this a premier medical source. The amount of information and organization is top notch. This is an excellent opportunity to show off our skilled health science pages. Scope2776 09:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - just started looking. Not sure that the "bad cholesterol" and "good cholesterol" phrases mentioned in the lead are a particularly suitable tone - maybe they can be left out? cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 10:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment - also, under subheading Risk factors, you can't have a citation needed tag. That one should be really easy to get a ref for. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 10:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - under Pathophysiology, ~~there's a rather obvious tag too...I think this needs to be addressed.~~ (actually, could do with a couple of refs in here) cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 10:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment........and 5 citation needed tags under Causes. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 10:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment..Women often experience different symptoms than men -I think should be to men.cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 10:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment..if you can, nice to bluelink at least some if not all of the redlinks in the Electrocardiogram subsection.cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 10:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment..I'd put First aid subsection under Treatment section as it is a part of treatment.

Comment..and there's a few more citation needed tags past this point too. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 10:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, I think most of these are readily fixable though the number of them would be a tad daunting to me. The prose is succinct and clear to me, but I am a doctor so am very familiar with the jargon. Would be good to get a layperson's view of it. Once the above issues are rectified I'll be happy to support. Good luck cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 10:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: In the interests of clarity I am happy for you to strike out my comments once addressed. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 10:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and thanks for the review of the article! Yes, the things you brought up do need to be addressed, for the moment I fixed the first five of your comments, i'll begin work on the others shortly. I cited a few statements under the "Causes" tab with the same article for now because I thought the article covered the statements well - but i'll revisit this later too. Thanks again! Scope2776 21:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Some polishing needed, but ready for prime time. JFW | T@lk 22:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I suggest a GA review, and a peer review, may help polish this article in preparation for FAC. A lot of attention to wiki-linking is needed, there is an incorrect use of a hyphen rather than an em-dash in the lead (older age- ), and there are numerous cite needed tags. The article is listy in places, and Cardiac arrest is included in See also, rather than worked into the text. These deficiencies show up with a quick glance only, suggesting that a peer review might help bring the article up to FAC standards. Reviewing the recently promoted/reviewed Tuberculosis, Influenza and Tourette syndrome might be helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Inordinately long, I'm afraid. Also many uncited statements last time I checked. Wouldn't you like to refer to peer review first? Fvasconcellos 03:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There have been some conflicting ideas about how long the page should be, I'd appreciate some suggestions about where we can shorten the article, e.g. what sections should be shortened or split out from the article. Thanks.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 12:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for the reviews! I will submit this page to peer review and try and do some more cleaning myself. I do think on second glance this page needs a little more cleanup. Thanks again! Scope2776 04:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea a peer review is in place.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 12:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I wrote quite a lot of it, but it still needs some work for now.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 12:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Why isn't this article located at heart attack? WP:NC and WP:NC(CN) are pretty clear that articles should be located at the title most familiar to a general audience. "Myocardial infarcation" is hardly a common term, nor is it second nature to link to such a term. — Brian (talk) 00:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a good point. Some people use "acute coronary syndrome" or "chest pain" and others non-STEMI & STEMI. Snowman 22:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - See WP:MEDMOS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks for the link. What a horrible proposal if it recommends something obscure and technical like "myocardial infarcation" over something simple and second-nature like "heart attack". I think I'll be opposing this proposed guideline. — Brian (talk) 22:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.