Talk:Coronary artery bypass surgery/GA2
GA Review[edit]
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: BeingObjective (talk · contribs) 23:51, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Under review BeingObjective (talk) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- B. 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):
- C. It contains no original research:
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
Thought this a good article Doctor BeingObjetive MD. BeingObjective 06:18, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Review?[edit]
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)
- Iztwoz, the review will likely be declared invalid. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:24, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
- Hey really deep apologies - I have a sneaking suspicion, I should not be GA reviewing anything. My opinion, being in this business space - the article IMHO is likely just fine - for WP.
- If you feel it needs more work and that that a few hours is insufficient to review a fairly obvious article - I totally respect your opinion. Perhaps you should be reviewing the document.
- I do not know who Tom is - or what he/she represents. I only reviewed this article in isolation - I never looked at the history - and why would I?
- I think there is little need for the tone in your note - I sense a curious nebulous outrage - it was never my intention to offend - there was little value add- I am not going to make comments that I cannot support - or comments for the sake of simply making a comment - speaking professionally.
- I think WP:CIVIL comes to minds - but perhaps this was not your intention. And I will assume you are acting in good faith.
- I am not clear as to your agenda and what you want to see - I will certainly refrain from further GA reviews - I have surgeries scheduled and do not have further time - so I should likely never have engaged on this matter - I thought I was doing something helpful - apparently not so.
- Again - I am really sorry that you think I cannot assess something in a few hours, possibly I am too close to the subject matter.
- Doctor BeingObjetive MD. BeingObjective 17:25, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
- A reviewer normally takes time to point out things in an article that they would like to see changed and there is normally an exchange of comments between reviewer and nominator. I chose not to review the article as it needs so much work - in my opinion: Obvious changes needed are the mixed use of mammary and thoracic arteries - consistency is the aim; captions need to be more concise; too much jargon; references need work; much of the writing could be a lot more concise. My agenda is the same as most other editors - to see well presented, readable and understandable articles. Iztwoz (talk) 17:45, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
- Respectfully - I really do understand how you personally might perceive this article to be full of jargon - and it is a matter of real world perspective. Too me this is absolutely not jargon, and perhaps this is the primary reason I should not have even attempted a review. I am clearly not objective.
- It is really only your opinion - and that really is the end of the dialog.
- As to your specific comments - you seem to have many opinions and feel a need to tell me that you deeply understand CABG surgery. I am mystified why you do not engage and edit to your liking, as you seem so very well informed - I have missed something, what is your agenda, are you attacking me or the actual article? We are on the very edge of an ad hominem here and I do not think this needs to be. So I think a little maturity is needed.
- My review has been nullified, so continuing to reach out to me suggests other issues.
- The matter was closed when my review was nullified - I do not need to be impressed or know anything about your opinions on a procedure that is well practiced and known to me.
- Kindly cease and desist - it is totally a closed matter.
- I hope to see no further notes, comments targeted at me or request on my talk page for assistance in writing technical articles - there have been too many - I had a sense this might be problematic.
- Doctor BeingObjetive MD. BeingObjective 18:06, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
- A reviewer normally takes time to point out things in an article that they would like to see changed and there is normally an exchange of comments between reviewer and nominator. I chose not to review the article as it needs so much work - in my opinion: Obvious changes needed are the mixed use of mammary and thoracic arteries - consistency is the aim; captions need to be more concise; too much jargon; references need work; much of the writing could be a lot more concise. My agenda is the same as most other editors - to see well presented, readable and understandable articles. Iztwoz (talk) 17:45, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
- This review has been declared invalid, and the nomination has been returned to the queue. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:19, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
- Appreciated - lessons learned.
- Professional regards - Doctor BeingObjetive MD. BeingObjective 18:26, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
- Further - please nullify for all other good faith GAs by this user.
- Seriously just trying to be helpful. i did not leap into this matter with an agenda - it was requested of me. I have learned a serious lesson here - cheers.
- Doctor BeingObjetive MD. BeingObjective 18:29, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you @BeingObjective for your review. Cinadon36 15:25, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
Review invalidated[edit]
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)