Wikipedia:Peer review/Nanostim Leadless Pacemaker/archive1

Nanostim Leadless Pacemaker

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Thanks, Laurakoehler (talk) 19:44, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from EricEnfermero

I'm fairly new at PR but I am happy to leave a few comments.

Should the article be moved at some point to Nanostim leadless pacemaker? It seems this is reflected in the company's literature.
Per WP:LEAD, that section should summarize the body of the article. It shouldn't introduce significant facts omitted from the body.
Are there independent sources that could replace some of the uses of the company's product information?
I think that the article could benefit from some background on pacing before detailing the advantages of the Nanostim.
The Advantages section doesn't list that many advantages. Maybe it's just a matter of titling the section differently.
Check the article for redundant language such as "there still remains a considerable..." - WP:GOCE may be able to help.
I would also try to avoid subjective language like "remarkable" and "unique", except maybe in direct quotes.
"subjected to harsh environments and mechanical stress..." - not 100% clear on the harsh environments.
There is extraneous punctuation in the Advantages section. Again, a GOCE copyedit may help.
I would expect a History section to take a more chronological approach. I would start with the 1950s.
"feasibility of these pacing systems has shown to be successful" - feasibility and success are different concepts.
Because you talk about phases later, I would use a different term for the 1970 research.
By "initial technical difficulties with intracardiac pacing", do we just mean the need for leads? That sentence needs a reference.
How big is a traditional pacemaker? I'm assuming you mean the dimensions here.
"catheter-based delivery system originating from the femoral vein" - imprecise; originates in a factory, not from a vein. May help to make those two separate sentences.
Avoid the use of "currently" per WP:WTW; might use "as of" instead.
Two references to Phase II trials. Should the second one be Phase I?
I would like a little more specific information on risks of pacemakers and this device.
There is no mention that Nanostim was its own company until it was purchased by SJM.

Good luck with this entry. It's a pretty fascinating topic! EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 09:50, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]