This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Coronary artery bypass surgery article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 365 days
![]() |
![]() | Coronary artery bypass surgery has been listed as one of the
Natural sciences good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: January 19, 2024. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | Coronary artery bypass surgery was nominated as a Natural sciences good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (October 25, 2022). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
![]() | Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically
review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Coronary artery bypass surgery.
|
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Anyone have a good reference for graft patency rates? The numbers I have are only for SVG grafts and I don't have a proper reference for where I got the numbers from. :-( Ksheka 14:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
The patency rates are as follow (in decending order):
If I find time to track down references for this, I will insert in in the article.
Patency also depends on the quality of the outflow tract (downstream from the distal anastomosis). For this reason, a LIMA to LAD graft has the highest patency of any configurations. BakerStMD T| C 18:16, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
First of all... surprised that the talk page had more info than the article itself.
Second: I am working on my thesis on graft patency and I have my references on this handy. May as well put them here so someone else can work them into the article.
Third: Its not that after 15 years the graft all fail. But when they do, its the question of whether the patient is symptomatic or not. If the patient is coping well and not showing any symptoms, then we leave them alone. If they cannot stand up without feeling angina pain, then we operate on them again. Chances are, with people operated on being about 70-80 years old anyway, 15 years post-surgery most of them would have died by other cause (cancer most likely).
Ok, so here are the current recommendations:
For Left Coronary System: (i.e. the Left Anterior Descending Artery and the Circumflex Artery)
Ref1: Taggart DP, D’Amico R, Altman DG. Effect of arterial revascularisation on survival: a systematic review of studies comparing bilateral and single internal mammary arteries. Lancet 2001;358(September(9285)):870-5. Ref2: Lytle B, Blackstone E, Sabik JF, Houghtaling P, Loop FD, Cosgrove DM. The effect of bilateral internal thoracic artery grafting on survival during 20 postoperative years. Trial awaiting Result: Taggart DP, Lees B, Gray A, Altman DG, Marcus F, Channon K, ART investigators. Arterial Revascularisation Trial (ART). A randomised trial to compare survival following bilateral versus single internal mammary grafting in coronary revascularisation [ISRCTN46552265]. Trials. 2006; 7: 7. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-7-7. PMC 1450314
This is the accepted norm (at least in the US and European Countries) for the moment
For the Right Coronary System: (i.e. the Right Coronary Artery, the Left Ventricular Branches of the RCA and in most cases the Posterior Descending Artery)
Ref1: Glineur D, D'hoore W, El Khoury G, Sondji S, Kalscheuer G, Funken JC, Rubay J, Poncelet A, Astarci P, Verhelst R, Noirhomme P, Hanet C. Angiographic predictors of 6-month patency of bypass grafts implanted to the right coronary artery a prospective randomized comparison of gastroepiploic artery and saphenous vein grafts. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008 Jan 15;51(2):120-5. Ref2: Hayward PA, Hadinata IE, Hare D, Moten S, Rosalion A, Seevanayagam S, Buxton B, Matalanis G. Choice Of Conduit For The Right Coronary System: An 8-year Analysis From The Radial Artery Patency And Clinical Outcomes Trial. Proceedings of the 2009 Society For Cardiothoracic Surgery In Great Britain and Ireland Annual Meeting BIC; 2009 Mar 22-24; Bournemouth, United Kingdom. (Abstract available online - Manuscript publication pending)
***EDIT: The paper is now published. The correct reference is: Hadinata IE, Hayward PAR, Hare DL, Matalanis GS, Seevanayagam S, Rosalion A, Buxton BF. Choice of Conduit for the Right Coronary System: 8-Year Analysis of Radial Artery Patency and Clinical Outcomes Trial. Ann Thorac Surg 2009;88:1404–9*** Ignatius Eric Hadinata ( talk) 15:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I am one of the authors of that last reference. I admit that not everyone will agree with what I have written above, especially if you research publications older than 2008. Older surgeons also tend not to agree with newer research. Not every country has adopted the bilateral ITA approach. This method is new and still debated. The randomised controlled trial to prove it is not finished yet, but there is enough evidence to convince the majority of surgeons to adopt it.
P.S: The study by Dr. Fremes (mentioned in the comment above) was started before the theory of the bilateral ITA was put forward. It studies the difference between Saphenous vein (SV) and Radial Artery (RA) in the same patient. Basically he randomises each patient to either receive an SV or RA to the circumflex artery. If the patient receives SV to the circumflex, then he puts the RA to the right coronary artery and vice versa. He then follows up those patients over 10 years (I believe) and compares the patencies of the RA and SV.
Ignatius Eric Hadinata ( talk) 05:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
"Two alternative techniques are also available allowing CABG to be performed on a beating heart either without using the cardiopulmonary bypass deemed as "off-pump" surgery or performing beating surgery using partial assistance of the cardiopulmonary bypass called as "on-pump beating" surgery. The latter gathers the advantages of the on-pump stopped and off-pump while minimizing their respective side-effects."
Hello, as a non-expert, I am having difficulty parsing these two sentences. Let me give it a try. The following is what I think this text may be saying:
Two alternative techniques are also available allowing CABG to be performed on a beating heart, 1) without using cardiopulmonary bypass at all, this is called "off-pump surgery", and 2) using partial assistance from the cardiopulmonary bypass, this is called "on-pump beating surgery". The latter combines the advantages of cardiopulmonary bypass (on-pump) and off-pump surgery while minimizing their respective side-effects.
My problem with the original is that I'm not sure if the 'deemed as' refers to cardiopulmonary bypass itself, or 'without using cardiopulmonary bypass', because the word pump does not appear in connection with cardiopulmonary bypass in the preceding text. In the second sentence, 'on-pump stopped' also leaves me bewildered.
As an aside, is aortic no-touch technique something that deserves mention in wikipedia? Papafrancis ( talk) 18:01, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
doi:10.1056/NEJMra1406944 JFW | T@lk 05:01, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be a section on the donor vessel in the article? Which vessels are being used as donor vessel? Why that vessel or those vessels? This with some good pictures would improve the article. I am insufficiently knowledgable on the subject to do it myself so I simply address it. 145.132.75.218 ( talk) 16:19, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Complications section (see current version) shouldnt be an indiscriminate list of various complications that might appear. Rather we should be describing the most common and dangerous (ie graft failure, heart failure, infection, sepsis, renal failure, Stroke and maybe some more), so reader should put things into the right perspective. Cinadon 36 09:16, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Section procedure should have just two subsections, on and off Pump (criticism for current version. Cinadon 36 09:19, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Tom (LT) ( talk · contribs) 04:26, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi, nice to meet you, I will be taking up this review. I'll be reviewing this article against the six good article criteria (
WP:GA?). As way of introduction, I mostly edit anatomy and medical articles and have reviewed around 75 - 100 articles for GA status. I will spend a few days examining this article before posting my assessment and as always look forward to a dialogue after if there are no significant issues identified. Cheers,
Tom (LT) (
talk) 04:26, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi Cinadon36, thanks for your edits and this nomination. I have had a look and do have some issues:
Thanks greatly for your edits to this article - it's clear a lot of effort has been put in, and the referencing is solid and the pictures are pretty relevant. However, Rome wasn't built in a day and, with the active copyediting tag and these issues, I'm going to fail this review for the moment. Happy to take up the review again if you want to renominate once you've addressed these issues. Thanks again for your contributions, Tom (LT) ( talk) 09:38, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
@ Cinadon36: I'll try to do a good copy edit. From a glance, there are a lot of exotic medical terms used here that will really need context and glossing, especially for such an important article like this one, which should be broadly accessible. I will note those as applicable and gloss the few I'm familiar enough with. I would pretend like you are writing for a 16 year old, with a basic understanding of the body as might be learned in high school. It's much better to be slightly imprecise or informal ("heart attack" instead of "myocardial infarction") than to make an article impenetrable to anyone not already immersed in the subject. Ovinus ( talk) 01:29, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
A list of terms that (in my opinion) must be defined or simply not used. (in progress)
Thanks for your ongoing effort to improve the article. Cinadon 36 08:48, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
@ Cinadon36: This page has two citation needed tags that really should be resolved immediately. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:49, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Recent edits by Wpntm have tried to increase the prominence of René Favaloro in the history section; while that might be a worthy goal, I'm not really sure that was the best way of going about it so I reverted them. The sources they used were good as far as these things go, but are not as comprehensive as the Head (2013) reference that's already in the article; I don't know much about the topic but I doubt there's a much better source than Head (2013), which also gives a little more prominence to Favaloro than we do ... although not in a very encyclopedic way. Also see the conversation about this on Wpntm's talk page, but further comments should probably go here. Pinging Cinadon36, the main writer of this page. Graham87 ( talk) 15:49, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- Backward editing: "Here is what the article should say, now let's find sources to support each fact..."
- Forward editing: "Here are three good sources about this topic, now let's summarize them..."
I removed two recently added internal links to endoscopic harvesting. Not all, or even most, harvesting is done endoscopically. Moreover, sources are not saying such a thing. So, I believe it should not be added again. @ Iztwoz:. Cinadon 36 08:53, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: BeingObjective ( talk · contribs) 23:51, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Under review BeingObjective ( talk) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Thought this a good article Doctor BeingObjetive MD. BeingObjective 06:18, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
There has been no actual review of this comprehensive article that the reviewer has passed with no comments at all. One hour after initiating and finishing review he has announced is on Wikibreak. There is much improvement needed to the page as outlined by the previous reviewer Tom just last year. Can this 'review' be not upheld - I note the banner has not been made. -- Iztwoz ( talk) 12:36, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
This review is invalidated by the reviewer's request due to lack of time to complete the review:
-- Maxim Masiutin ( talk) 20:07, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Just-a-can-of-beans ( talk · contribs) 23:18, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I'll go ahead and take up the mantle and give this a proper review. I will make edits to this template as I go over each section.
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | The "Indications for CABG" section seems a bit overly technical, but not excessively so, and this is possibly an inherently technical section. A minor nitpick - the prose and grammar is easily strong enough for GA status.
Also, I'm going to make a small edit to clarify the meaning of PCI in the History section, because it's only explained much further up on the page, and some readers are likely interested in the History section without the more technical stuff. 22:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC) |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | The only nitpick I have is that the Complications section could probably use some subsection headers. It's a bit content-heavy to not have them, and this kind of section is usually easy to incorporate them into. But it's not overly unwieldy and I think certainly not a barrier to GA status. |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | Several paragraphs below the lead are not cited. Please go through the article and add citations to all paragraphs that lack them. 22:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
|
![]() |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | 18:56, 19 January 2024 (UTC) |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | 22:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC) |
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | 18:57, 19 January 2024 (UTC) |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Comprehensive. Exceeds what I think would be necessary for GA status, but is not out of scope either. Nice page. 22:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC) |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | See 3a. 22:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC) |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | There is a major claim within the "Results" section which is a problem. The start to this section states, "CABG is the best procedure to reduce mortality from severe CAD and improve quality of life." While this assertion is cited, that citation is hard to access, and there is no explanation or elaboration of what exactly justifies it as the "best" procedure. I think there are two relatively easy resolutions here:
1. Elaborate on this claim, providing comparisons that directly demonstrate why CABG is superior, using information from that source. 2. Provide a source which supports the same claim but is easier to access and verify. Until one of those is done, this statement seems like it could be a biased piece of personal opinion. I'm going to need a few more days to finish this review up, so if you see this before then and make the changes, I will change this before making a final decision. 22:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
|
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | 23:24, 1 January 2024 (UTC) |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | 23:23, 1 January 2024 (UTC) |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Nice images throughout the page. All are topical and licensed appropriately. 23:23, 1 January 2024 (UTC) |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | Thank you for responding to any critiques I had. This is an excellent and well-researched page and you should feel proud of it, because many people who have this procedure done are going to come to this page nervous and poorly informed, and now thanks to you they're going to have a strong understanding of it. In that sense, what you've done here is really a community service. Excellent job. Just-a-can-of-beans ( talk) 19:01, 19 January 2024 (UTC) |
If I have any additional comments, I will add them below. Just-a-can-of-beans ( talk) 23:18, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Coronary artery bypass surgery article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 365 days
![]() |
![]() | Coronary artery bypass surgery has been listed as one of the
Natural sciences good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: January 19, 2024. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | Coronary artery bypass surgery was nominated as a Natural sciences good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (October 25, 2022). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
![]() | Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically
review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Coronary artery bypass surgery.
|
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Anyone have a good reference for graft patency rates? The numbers I have are only for SVG grafts and I don't have a proper reference for where I got the numbers from. :-( Ksheka 14:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
The patency rates are as follow (in decending order):
If I find time to track down references for this, I will insert in in the article.
Patency also depends on the quality of the outflow tract (downstream from the distal anastomosis). For this reason, a LIMA to LAD graft has the highest patency of any configurations. BakerStMD T| C 18:16, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
First of all... surprised that the talk page had more info than the article itself.
Second: I am working on my thesis on graft patency and I have my references on this handy. May as well put them here so someone else can work them into the article.
Third: Its not that after 15 years the graft all fail. But when they do, its the question of whether the patient is symptomatic or not. If the patient is coping well and not showing any symptoms, then we leave them alone. If they cannot stand up without feeling angina pain, then we operate on them again. Chances are, with people operated on being about 70-80 years old anyway, 15 years post-surgery most of them would have died by other cause (cancer most likely).
Ok, so here are the current recommendations:
For Left Coronary System: (i.e. the Left Anterior Descending Artery and the Circumflex Artery)
Ref1: Taggart DP, D’Amico R, Altman DG. Effect of arterial revascularisation on survival: a systematic review of studies comparing bilateral and single internal mammary arteries. Lancet 2001;358(September(9285)):870-5. Ref2: Lytle B, Blackstone E, Sabik JF, Houghtaling P, Loop FD, Cosgrove DM. The effect of bilateral internal thoracic artery grafting on survival during 20 postoperative years. Trial awaiting Result: Taggart DP, Lees B, Gray A, Altman DG, Marcus F, Channon K, ART investigators. Arterial Revascularisation Trial (ART). A randomised trial to compare survival following bilateral versus single internal mammary grafting in coronary revascularisation [ISRCTN46552265]. Trials. 2006; 7: 7. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-7-7. PMC 1450314
This is the accepted norm (at least in the US and European Countries) for the moment
For the Right Coronary System: (i.e. the Right Coronary Artery, the Left Ventricular Branches of the RCA and in most cases the Posterior Descending Artery)
Ref1: Glineur D, D'hoore W, El Khoury G, Sondji S, Kalscheuer G, Funken JC, Rubay J, Poncelet A, Astarci P, Verhelst R, Noirhomme P, Hanet C. Angiographic predictors of 6-month patency of bypass grafts implanted to the right coronary artery a prospective randomized comparison of gastroepiploic artery and saphenous vein grafts. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008 Jan 15;51(2):120-5. Ref2: Hayward PA, Hadinata IE, Hare D, Moten S, Rosalion A, Seevanayagam S, Buxton B, Matalanis G. Choice Of Conduit For The Right Coronary System: An 8-year Analysis From The Radial Artery Patency And Clinical Outcomes Trial. Proceedings of the 2009 Society For Cardiothoracic Surgery In Great Britain and Ireland Annual Meeting BIC; 2009 Mar 22-24; Bournemouth, United Kingdom. (Abstract available online - Manuscript publication pending)
***EDIT: The paper is now published. The correct reference is: Hadinata IE, Hayward PAR, Hare DL, Matalanis GS, Seevanayagam S, Rosalion A, Buxton BF. Choice of Conduit for the Right Coronary System: 8-Year Analysis of Radial Artery Patency and Clinical Outcomes Trial. Ann Thorac Surg 2009;88:1404–9*** Ignatius Eric Hadinata ( talk) 15:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I am one of the authors of that last reference. I admit that not everyone will agree with what I have written above, especially if you research publications older than 2008. Older surgeons also tend not to agree with newer research. Not every country has adopted the bilateral ITA approach. This method is new and still debated. The randomised controlled trial to prove it is not finished yet, but there is enough evidence to convince the majority of surgeons to adopt it.
P.S: The study by Dr. Fremes (mentioned in the comment above) was started before the theory of the bilateral ITA was put forward. It studies the difference between Saphenous vein (SV) and Radial Artery (RA) in the same patient. Basically he randomises each patient to either receive an SV or RA to the circumflex artery. If the patient receives SV to the circumflex, then he puts the RA to the right coronary artery and vice versa. He then follows up those patients over 10 years (I believe) and compares the patencies of the RA and SV.
Ignatius Eric Hadinata ( talk) 05:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
"Two alternative techniques are also available allowing CABG to be performed on a beating heart either without using the cardiopulmonary bypass deemed as "off-pump" surgery or performing beating surgery using partial assistance of the cardiopulmonary bypass called as "on-pump beating" surgery. The latter gathers the advantages of the on-pump stopped and off-pump while minimizing their respective side-effects."
Hello, as a non-expert, I am having difficulty parsing these two sentences. Let me give it a try. The following is what I think this text may be saying:
Two alternative techniques are also available allowing CABG to be performed on a beating heart, 1) without using cardiopulmonary bypass at all, this is called "off-pump surgery", and 2) using partial assistance from the cardiopulmonary bypass, this is called "on-pump beating surgery". The latter combines the advantages of cardiopulmonary bypass (on-pump) and off-pump surgery while minimizing their respective side-effects.
My problem with the original is that I'm not sure if the 'deemed as' refers to cardiopulmonary bypass itself, or 'without using cardiopulmonary bypass', because the word pump does not appear in connection with cardiopulmonary bypass in the preceding text. In the second sentence, 'on-pump stopped' also leaves me bewildered.
As an aside, is aortic no-touch technique something that deserves mention in wikipedia? Papafrancis ( talk) 18:01, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
doi:10.1056/NEJMra1406944 JFW | T@lk 05:01, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be a section on the donor vessel in the article? Which vessels are being used as donor vessel? Why that vessel or those vessels? This with some good pictures would improve the article. I am insufficiently knowledgable on the subject to do it myself so I simply address it. 145.132.75.218 ( talk) 16:19, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Complications section (see current version) shouldnt be an indiscriminate list of various complications that might appear. Rather we should be describing the most common and dangerous (ie graft failure, heart failure, infection, sepsis, renal failure, Stroke and maybe some more), so reader should put things into the right perspective. Cinadon 36 09:16, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Section procedure should have just two subsections, on and off Pump (criticism for current version. Cinadon 36 09:19, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Tom (LT) ( talk · contribs) 04:26, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi, nice to meet you, I will be taking up this review. I'll be reviewing this article against the six good article criteria (
WP:GA?). As way of introduction, I mostly edit anatomy and medical articles and have reviewed around 75 - 100 articles for GA status. I will spend a few days examining this article before posting my assessment and as always look forward to a dialogue after if there are no significant issues identified. Cheers,
Tom (LT) (
talk) 04:26, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi Cinadon36, thanks for your edits and this nomination. I have had a look and do have some issues:
Thanks greatly for your edits to this article - it's clear a lot of effort has been put in, and the referencing is solid and the pictures are pretty relevant. However, Rome wasn't built in a day and, with the active copyediting tag and these issues, I'm going to fail this review for the moment. Happy to take up the review again if you want to renominate once you've addressed these issues. Thanks again for your contributions, Tom (LT) ( talk) 09:38, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
@ Cinadon36: I'll try to do a good copy edit. From a glance, there are a lot of exotic medical terms used here that will really need context and glossing, especially for such an important article like this one, which should be broadly accessible. I will note those as applicable and gloss the few I'm familiar enough with. I would pretend like you are writing for a 16 year old, with a basic understanding of the body as might be learned in high school. It's much better to be slightly imprecise or informal ("heart attack" instead of "myocardial infarction") than to make an article impenetrable to anyone not already immersed in the subject. Ovinus ( talk) 01:29, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
A list of terms that (in my opinion) must be defined or simply not used. (in progress)
Thanks for your ongoing effort to improve the article. Cinadon 36 08:48, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
@ Cinadon36: This page has two citation needed tags that really should be resolved immediately. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:49, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Recent edits by Wpntm have tried to increase the prominence of René Favaloro in the history section; while that might be a worthy goal, I'm not really sure that was the best way of going about it so I reverted them. The sources they used were good as far as these things go, but are not as comprehensive as the Head (2013) reference that's already in the article; I don't know much about the topic but I doubt there's a much better source than Head (2013), which also gives a little more prominence to Favaloro than we do ... although not in a very encyclopedic way. Also see the conversation about this on Wpntm's talk page, but further comments should probably go here. Pinging Cinadon36, the main writer of this page. Graham87 ( talk) 15:49, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- Backward editing: "Here is what the article should say, now let's find sources to support each fact..."
- Forward editing: "Here are three good sources about this topic, now let's summarize them..."
I removed two recently added internal links to endoscopic harvesting. Not all, or even most, harvesting is done endoscopically. Moreover, sources are not saying such a thing. So, I believe it should not be added again. @ Iztwoz:. Cinadon 36 08:53, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: BeingObjective ( talk · contribs) 23:51, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Under review BeingObjective ( talk) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Thought this a good article Doctor BeingObjetive MD. BeingObjective 06:18, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
There has been no actual review of this comprehensive article that the reviewer has passed with no comments at all. One hour after initiating and finishing review he has announced is on Wikibreak. There is much improvement needed to the page as outlined by the previous reviewer Tom just last year. Can this 'review' be not upheld - I note the banner has not been made. -- Iztwoz ( talk) 12:36, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
This review is invalidated by the reviewer's request due to lack of time to complete the review:
-- Maxim Masiutin ( talk) 20:07, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Just-a-can-of-beans ( talk · contribs) 23:18, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I'll go ahead and take up the mantle and give this a proper review. I will make edits to this template as I go over each section.
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | The "Indications for CABG" section seems a bit overly technical, but not excessively so, and this is possibly an inherently technical section. A minor nitpick - the prose and grammar is easily strong enough for GA status.
Also, I'm going to make a small edit to clarify the meaning of PCI in the History section, because it's only explained much further up on the page, and some readers are likely interested in the History section without the more technical stuff. 22:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC) |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | The only nitpick I have is that the Complications section could probably use some subsection headers. It's a bit content-heavy to not have them, and this kind of section is usually easy to incorporate them into. But it's not overly unwieldy and I think certainly not a barrier to GA status. |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | Several paragraphs below the lead are not cited. Please go through the article and add citations to all paragraphs that lack them. 22:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
|
![]() |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | 18:56, 19 January 2024 (UTC) |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | 22:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC) |
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | 18:57, 19 January 2024 (UTC) |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Comprehensive. Exceeds what I think would be necessary for GA status, but is not out of scope either. Nice page. 22:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC) |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | See 3a. 22:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC) |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | There is a major claim within the "Results" section which is a problem. The start to this section states, "CABG is the best procedure to reduce mortality from severe CAD and improve quality of life." While this assertion is cited, that citation is hard to access, and there is no explanation or elaboration of what exactly justifies it as the "best" procedure. I think there are two relatively easy resolutions here:
1. Elaborate on this claim, providing comparisons that directly demonstrate why CABG is superior, using information from that source. 2. Provide a source which supports the same claim but is easier to access and verify. Until one of those is done, this statement seems like it could be a biased piece of personal opinion. I'm going to need a few more days to finish this review up, so if you see this before then and make the changes, I will change this before making a final decision. 22:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
|
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | 23:24, 1 January 2024 (UTC) |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | 23:23, 1 January 2024 (UTC) |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Nice images throughout the page. All are topical and licensed appropriately. 23:23, 1 January 2024 (UTC) |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | Thank you for responding to any critiques I had. This is an excellent and well-researched page and you should feel proud of it, because many people who have this procedure done are going to come to this page nervous and poorly informed, and now thanks to you they're going to have a strong understanding of it. In that sense, what you've done here is really a community service. Excellent job. Just-a-can-of-beans ( talk) 19:01, 19 January 2024 (UTC) |
If I have any additional comments, I will add them below. Just-a-can-of-beans ( talk) 23:18, 1 January 2024 (UTC)