This review is transcluded from Talk:Drug-eluting stent/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Maxim Masiutin (talk · contribs) 21:26, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Pbsouthwood (talk · contribs) 16:16, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. 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:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   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: No objections from Earwig.

3. 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):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. 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:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

1) Please go through the article and add links to terms that an ordinary reader is likely to need to understand the article. I will not consider it overlinking if there is a link to the first occurrence of a term in any given level 2 section.

There may still be some left to do.

2) I got the impression that some information was repeated more than necessary. There may be room for trimming the text a bit.

I have done most of this myself, concentrate on the detailed comments and inline tags

3) There may be other more detailed articles that can be hatlinked from sections.

4) This is a very old nomination. It would probably be good to check through it and assess any significant changes since nomination.

5} It is a large article. There may be more than can be comfortably managed in a week or two, but I am not in a hurry.

6) If I make a recommendation that is not a requirement for GA I will usually put it in a separate subsection.

7) If a change is small and easily reversed, I will probably just do it. If you don't like it please say why in the edit summary.

I have made more changes than I originally planned, as it was usually easier to make the edit then explain what I wanted.

8) If in doubt, ask.

Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 16:16, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

a) Where there is a claim of risk, please cite stats where available. the significance of a change in risk is usually best judged from actual numbers. A complication is when something goes wrong, risk is the probability of it happening. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 18:11, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

b) I think the lead needs work. It does not appear to summarise enough of the body sections. I may get back to this in more detail later.· · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 19:36, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

c) Section "Uses" needs a section summary to tie it together. The flow of the whole section is broken and needs copy editing for coherence and logical flow. Subsection "Atherosclerosis: a general background", second bullet point, uses unencyclopedic language, bordering on promotional. Subsection "Clinical indications" needs copy editing to tie in the last paragraph coherently. Consider integrating it with the first paragraph. Infobox artery inserts an additional automatically generated short description in the section. Why is this image used as an infobox? · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 04:02, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

d) There is a big chunk of redundant content after the comment I left in subsection "Stenosis and restenosis of blood vessels" I have not removed it myself as I don't know how useful the references may be.· · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 06:53, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

e) Subsection "Coronary interventions" also appears to be largely repetition of material presented elsewhere. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 06:58, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have trimmed this down a bit.· · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 15:16, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are noticeable stylistic differences between some sections. Some are written in simple language, others in considerably more technical language. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 04:17, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Maxim Masiutin: Please see the above. Z1720 (talk) 18:41, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]