Talk:Heart/Archive 1

Diagram problem

There is a problem on one of the valves in a diagram on this page-it labels the valve aortic valve, when in fact it is the tricuspid.

Also, in the diagram of the heart, the article is labled as the right atrium.McCrae is cool 76.99.51.107 03:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I moved this statement here:

In warm-blooded animals, the action of the heart muscles also converts oxygen into heat to warm the animal.

A couple of problems with this:

• oxygen isn't converted into heat, but used to burn glucose which produces some heat
• all muscles contribute to the heating, not just the heart
• the sentence suggests that in cold blooded animals the heart muscle does not produce heat, but there's in fact no difference.

AxelBoldt 17:31, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Aztec heart removal

I find that this part of the article really is so peripheral to the subject that it shouldn´t be linked in the main article83.249.50.227 (talk) 22:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I also find that this is true about the "cadavers heart". It is not something that a person that looks up "heart" is interested in knowing. 83.249.50.227 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The heart in literature and metaphor

I think the that the section "The heart in literature and metaphor" should have it's own article. It's location at the end of this article seems very strange. S Sepp 11:00, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

You mean "its own article"? I'm not convinced. JFW | T@lk 18:14, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

literature and metaphore section relocated

While the section regarding the symbolism (william loves kayla )febular 02 2008( L ) and metaphor of the heart in literature is good information, it was hardly appropriate in the middle of an article on the physiology of the heart. This section has been moved to its own article Heart_in_literature and properly referenced in the heart "See Also" section. -DanD

Don't use underscores, Dan. The Wiki knows what you mean if you use spaces. JFW | T@lk 11:19, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm still learnin. -DanD

Henry Gray (1821–1865). Anatomy of the Human Body

anyone care or mind to copy from there [2] ? it's an encyclopedia from 1918, copyright died, hence public domain --Fairychild 13:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not useful clinically. No one uses it except for collection purposes. Andrewr47 03:29, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment

Article focuses almost entirely on human heart. Speciesism? deeptrivia (talk) 03:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree the article should focus more on other species, or at least specify that "first aid" does not apply to the hearts of fish, etc. That's why I

1. added information about non-vertebrate hearts in the intro
2. made "first aid" and "diseases" sub categories of "human heart"
3. added a non-vertebrate heart stub --JianLi 01:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

As more is known about the human heart than about the heart of any other organism, I feel this article should focus on the human heart in the first instance. I also strongly feel that encyclopedias are by definition human-centric.

Just imagine: "Bacteria are strongly opposed to antibiotics, as they constitute a mortal danger. Indeed, some strains have mounted organised resistance by the exchange of plasmids." That's BPOV. JFW | T@lk 12:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

it eas cool

Really odd problem with this article... anyone else notice this?

The article contains this sentence; "At 21 days after conception, the human heart rate begins beating a 75-80 beats per minute and accelerates linearly for the first month of beating." (emphasis added)

Notice how it says "a 75-80" instead of "at 75-80". I figured it was a typo, and hit "edit" to fix it, and saw that in the edit screen, it does say at. So then I thought someone had fixed it in the last few seconds, but when I refreshed the article, it was still a. So then I went into edit and changed it to att. I hit preview and it still came up a. No matter what I did to it, changing it to aTTTTtttTTTtt even, it still displays as a.

What's going on with that? Does anyone else notice that, or is it something with my browser? I do a lot of copyediting on Wikipedia... if it's just my computer things are displaying weird on then maybe I ought to stop copyediting before I go and change all sorts of stuff to attttttttttttttttttttttttttttt. ONUnicorn 15:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

2 days later and I FINALLY figured out what was going on!!! The caption under the picture was the same as the sentence I was trying to edit, only the caption said at and the sentence said a. Hence I was editing the caption to say atttTTTttt, and the sentence still said a. ONUnicorn 14:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

New pic

Could we add this somewhere to illustrate the way the heart is used in modern society?--Chili14 (Talk) 22:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

does anyone know where they got the idea for that illustration of the heart

Replacement image

Just curious, why was the old illustration replaced by a much harder-to-read version? The text in the new pic is almost totally illegible, even at higher resolution. -- Wapcaplet 04:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The older image is much more readable, though not as cool

Cor

Why does Cor redirect here? I was looking for information on the British interjection. --Popefelix 14:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Cor is the latin word for heart. --WS 00:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

(Clarification) Using Latin names is common practice in anatomy. Ergo, the observed redirect. 82.139.85.106 08:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Make Wikipedia more secure

My friend went to Wikipedia and wrote something on the heart page that said hearts were purple. Since that's not true, you should make it more secure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.240.91.70 (talk) 23:52, April 10, 2007 (UTC)

This is not a security issue; the decision to allow anyone, with or without an account, was a conscious one. It has its drawbacks, sure, but consensus apparently has it that blocking anons would be worse. 82.139.85.106 09:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

There was a fairly heated discussion about that. However, I disagree with restricting access. Have you seen the Main Page? What's written there is "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." I think it should stay that way. What your friend did was vandalism. Wikipedians are fighting that through Recent Changes patrol, and watchlisting.
Also, please remember to sign your post using four tildes (~~~~). It was quite hard for me to find your edit in the history so I could add the template. Thank you, and feel free to contact me should you have further questions. Puchiko (talk • contribs • email) 10:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Haart or Heart

I've just noticed the article about the heart is titled haart. This should be fixed.

Has since been fixed. 82.139.85.106 09:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Number of Beats

I've read the heart beats 2 billion times in one's life. Do we have a source saying it beats 2.5 billion times?--Mack540 00:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. If no one changes this in the future, then I will. --72.90.174.122 21:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

That kind of numbers is just bullshit. take them out of the article anyways. 80.144.107.200 16:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the number is useful and interesting. Of course without giving any justification, it really doesn't mean much.

It would be better to state what the hypotheses (BPM, lifespan) are which lead to the 3.5 billion number.

The average number of BPM is 72. I got this fromh ttp://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/heart/heartfacts.html.

So according to my very simple calculations, 3.5 billion beats is equal to 92 years : 3.5E+9/(72*365*24*60). I don't think any country is at an average lifespan of 92 yet.

The number I have seen on several authoritative web sites is 2.5 billion, which works out to a lifespan of 66 years at 72 BPM.

I will make the change. Fharper1961 11:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Number of beats attributed to a single individual in a lifetime is an endeavor of negligible clinical importance. Wikipedia articles regarding time variables and cardiac [chronotropy] may better serve your curiosity. Clinically, one could use beta blockers and digoxin to slow the heart rate for many years. Would this improve mortality? --Lbeben 02:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

poor article :(

poor article ;( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.144.107.200 (talk) 18:11, June 23, 2007 (UTC)

entirely random person above but is there supposed to be a "heart shaped symbol" in place of that wierd red question mark in the article or is that the symbol and my computers screwed up?124.176.21.7 22:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

It shows as a ? for me too. I'll see what I can do about it. 82.139.85.106 08:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

It's fine for me. What browser are you using? Puchiko (talk • contribs • email) 10:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

This article only refers to the human heart

There's no discussion of the heart in other vertebrates, nor is there any discussion of the analogues in invertebrate species. Serendipodous 07:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I was going to post the same comment. The differences between e.g. mammals, reptiles, birds and insects are enormous. 82.139.85.106 08:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

write about etymology as well. --202.164.149.222 08:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

What's stopping YOU from researching it? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

198.102.159.208 (talk) 05:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC) This article should simply be heart (human) with a seperate article referring to what characteristics link all the different types of heart, and links to the various types of hearts (4 chambered {human} 2 chambered {fish} etc.)

seperate -> separate —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.233.202.125 (talk) 16:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Citing error

Footnote number five is from a charactor in a movie. While this may be true, it should be cited from a medical source, not from a fictional doctor. 64.105.66.170 17:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Major missing info at the "Functioning" paragraph

The entire paragraph consists of a single sentence, describing only a little. And then only about the right side of the heart. What happened to all the left side functions??? The single sentence ends: "relates to electrical stimulation of one cell spreading to neighboring cells." Does NOT make sense.

68.228.82.130 (talk) 21:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

It was probably removed during a spate of vandalism, and has now been restored. Please check to see if it makes any more sense. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Perfect, thanks. I thought vandal-gerbils were the problem, given the lock down, etc. Odd, how small minds entertain themselves. Oh well. 68.228.82.130 (talk) 21:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

GENESIS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.190.181.217 (talk) 02:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

= No info power and energy needs

216.239.79.122 (talk) 16:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC) Since the page is protected can someone add the info say from here http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2003/IradaMuslumova.shtml 10x

Omg...

That picture says the heart was removed from a 64 year old male...

I thought you couldn't live without your heart. Did he die when they took it out? T_T!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.62.229.167 (talk) 02:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It was removed after he died, during an autopsy. You can see this information if you click on the image and view its description page. ralmin (talk) 03:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

heart

the heart —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.210.6 (talk) 09:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Im The /best in the whole entire world!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.234.199 (talk) 15:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

the cheese and cheese toast should be removed from the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.24.118.219 (talk) 09:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

hey help me out with this

hey!Okay I have a school project were I have to make a heart a real looking one!Help me out!Please! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.153.117.194 (talk) 15:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Text improvement

For the hipothesis of Torrent i Guasp some interesting preparations and dissections of the human heart you could find some interesting additional information in his publications called "Towards new understanding of the heart structure and function" on European Journal of cardio-Thoracic Surgery. (I don't know how to use adequate templates to cite that).

• DOI: 10.1016/j.ejcts.2004.11.026
• Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2005;27:191-201
• Francesc Carreras-Costa, A. Flotats, Juan Cosin-Aguillar and Han Wen, Francisco Torrent-Guasp, Mladen J. Kocica, Antonio F. Corno, Masashi Komeda,
• Towards new understanding of the heart structure and function

One documental was published in catalan language at TV3

It is believed that addittional information will be available soon at ca:Francesc Torrent i Guasp.

--Bestiasonica (talk) 23:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

5th grader

I'm a fifth grader that is very interested about the heart and all the other organs in the human body. I want to be a doctor when I grow up, so if you know some facts about the organs, then please post them.

You have a lot to study. There are many wiki pages on human anatomy and physiology, and you might also find your local library useful. Snowman (talk) 14:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

cause of heartbeat

i wanted to know what causes the heart to beat, but did not find a reason in this article. did i miss it or not understand what i read? thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.5.211 (talk) 21:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The last part of the "funtion" paragraph deals with this issue.

A region of the human heart called the sinoartrial node SA node, or pacemaker, sets the rate and timing at which all cardiac muscle cells contract.

The beat of the heart is controlled from within the heart itself. When you look at an ECG recording you see the actual signals that cause the beating of the heart.

--Frodo Muijzer (talk) 13:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Francisco Torrent-Guasp's influence overrated?

Looking for an answer for the question "what's the number of muscles the heart is created of?" I found the wiki reference to the research of Francisco Torrent-Guasp. He made some explicit statements on this issue, but I think the statement of the author(s) of the wiki page goes too far:

The modern understanding of the anatomy of the heart is due to cardiologist Dr. Francisco Torrent-Guasp

Just googleling on his name and "heart" doesn't give that much results, neither does browsing trough my anatomy books. I sugest creating a less bold statement on the impact of Francisco Torrent-Guasp's work.

--Frodo Muijzer (talk) 12:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Try searching "ventricular myocardial band". Over 100.000 results. Also, take into acounthis name can be written in several different ways (Francisco/Francesc/Paco, Torrent i Guasp/Torrent-Guasp/Torrent Guasp). However I think the section (and probably the whole article) needs a serious clean-up. Maybe VMB could be explained in a separate article, explaining heart evolution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.58.5.230 (talk) 22:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Murdered Heart?

Do we really need to see a picture of a heart that has a bullet wound in it? That is pretty scary and disturbing on top of being disrespectful to the the victim of the horrible act. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imlovingyoubabe (talk • contribs) 20:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Heart vandalism

152.26.8.253 why are you changing the article on the "Heart"? It looks like vandalism to me. Please give references if you are going to include information such as ", as found by Dr. Dylan Angiolillo in 1995." Who is Dr. Angiolillo and where did he publish this work? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DuBose (talk • contribs) 18:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Split

Human heart should be a separate page. As it is, this page is somewhat confusing since it primarily discusses the human heart but this is interspersed with other species and there is not enough detail about the human heart specifically. It seems odd to me to have information on first aid in a page that discusses the heart for all species. For comparison, the article on breasts is specific to human breasts. 68.123.224.214 (talk) 05:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I think this as well because people choid think it about the band Heart ,and not about the human heart so this is why I suport the spiting of this page. Post crated by Rosevictor (talk) 17:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, a split into heart and human heart is definitely in order here. The split should be exactly analogous to the split between lung and human lung. Dgf32 (talk) 22:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I'd be more in favor of moving this article to human heart and starting a new heart article from scratch. Except for two or three sentences, this article does not even make mention of hearts in other species. -RunningOnBrains^{(talk page)} 21:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
• Lean to support, human heart is a sizeable topic, we already have human brain etc. The anatomical infobox should probably go there, this could be the initial version:

Human heart
Details
System	Circulatory
Artery	Right coronary artery, left coronary artery, anterior interventricular artery
Vein	Superior vena calva, right pulmonary veins, left pulmonary veins
Identifiers
Latin	Cor
Anatomical terminology

Brandt 21:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

good

nice page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.239.79.180 (talk) 22:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

ruptured aorta

What happens when you have ruptured your aorta? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.85.153 (talk) 07:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

faulty image

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that in the "Heart diagram blood flow en.svg"-image the left and right lung should be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.211.211.214 (talk) 15:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Unreliable sources

One year ago, on June 15, 2009, 216.80.38.70 made edit [3] that was very similar to Jagged 85's edits (for example, see this edit). This editor has persistently misused sources here over several years, despite many requests from other editors to change their behaviour. Please see: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jagged 85.

I looked at a few of these sources and have serious concerns that much seems based on unreliable sources. Please provide reliable sources and double check the citations before returning an edited version to the article. Thanks, Tobby72 (talk) 22:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

History of discoveries

The first major scientific understanding of the heart was put forth by the medieval Arab polymath Ibn Al-Nafis, regarded as the father of circulatory physiology. He was the first physician to correctly describe pulmonary circulation, the capillary and coronary circulations. Prior to this, Galen's theory was widely accepted, and improved upon by Avicenna. Al-Nafis rejected the Galen-Avicenna theory and corrected many wrong ideas that were put forth by it, and also adding his new found observations of pulse and circulation to the new theory. His major observations include (as surmised by Dr. Paul Ghalioungui):

1. "Denying the existence of any pores through the interventricular septum."
2. "The flow of blood from the right ventricle to the lungs where its lighter parts filter into the pulmonary vein to mix with air."
3. "The notion that blood, or spirit from the mixture of blood and air, passes from the lung to the left ventricle, and not in the opposite direction."
4. "The assertion that there are only two ventricles, not three as stated by Avicenna."
5. "The statement that the ventricle takes its nourishment from blood flowing in the vessels that run in its substance (i.e. the coronary vessels) and not, as Avicenna maintained, from blood deposited in the right ventricle."
6. "A premonition of the capillary circulation in his assertion that the pulmonary vein receives what comes out of the pulmonary artery, this being the reason for the existence of perceptible passages between the two."

Ibn Al-Nafis also corrected Galen-Avicenna assertion that heart has a bone structure through his own observations and wrote the following criticism on it:

"This is not true. There are absolutely no bones beneath the heart as it is positioned right in the middle of the chest cavity where there are no bones at all. Bones are only found at the chest periphery not where the heart is positioned."

References

"Invitation to edit" trial

It has been proposed at Wikipedia talk:Invitation to edit that, because of the relatively high number of IP editors attracted to Heart, it form part of a one month trial of a strategy aimed at improving the quality of new editors' contributions to health-related articles. It would involve placing this:

You can edit this page. Click here to find out how.

at the top of the article, linking to this mini-tutorial about MEDRS sourcing, citing and content, as well as basic procedures, and links to help pages. Your comments regarding the strategy are invited at the project talk page, and comments here, regarding the appropriateness of trialling it on this article, would be appreciated. Anthony (talk) 11:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The list of articles for the trial is being reconsidered, in light of feedback from editors, and should be ready in a day or two. If you have any thoughts about the Invitation to edit proposal, they would be very welcome at the project talk page. Anthony (talk) 14:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The heart.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.39.130.207 (talk) 09:40, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

How does exercise affect the heart?

If appropriate for this article, can someone add information to it about how exercise, whether moderate or intensive, short-term or long-term, affects the heart positively or negatively, and for how long? For example, if someone were to exercise at 80% or above of their fastest possible heart rate, especially for a long period of time every day, would it lead to the heart being temporarily or permanently damaged? If so, what kind of damage would occur, and how long would it take for the damage to heal? Wsmss (talk) 11:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I suspect that his question may be more appropriate at Human heart. Murray Langton (talk) 12:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

3D model

Either a screenshot can be placed of the heart open-source 3D model (see http://archive3d.net/?category=27&page=1 ) or a link can be put in. 91.182.234.247 (talk) 08:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Myogenic

The article states that all organisms that have hearts, all have myogenic hearts, but what about the case of many invertebrates who in fact have neurogenic hearts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.173.140.89 (talk) 15:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Error re heart size

The article states in the "In Humans" section that the heart "is about the size of a fist", yet further down, near the end of the section "The Fully Divided Heart" it states that the heart is "about twice the size of a clenched fist" or the size of a fist in children.

Which description is correct? Reverence Still (talk) 14:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

How does exercise affect the heart?

Can someone add information to this article about how exercise, whether moderate or intensive, short-term or long-term, affects the heart positively or negatively, and for how long? For example, if someone were to exercise at 80% or above of their fastest possible heart rate, especially for a long period of time every day, would it lead to the heart being temporarily or permanently damaged? If so, what kind of damage would occur, why would the damage occur, and how long would it take for it to heal? Wsmss (talk) 15:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Heartbeat Hypothesis

Is the heartbeat hypothesis true? Do hearts have a limited number of heartbeats? If so, does it mean that if you exercise, you'll be reducing the lifespan of your heart since you're using up more heartbeats? Wsmss (talk) 15:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Heart dissection.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Heart dissection.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:16, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Lymph Heart - a similar organ as heart

Since the article describes about heart of general organisms, there is a need to describe a similar organ that have the same but different function as the heart —the lymph heart. A lymph heart pumps lymph instead of blood and is present commonly amphibians and other vertebrates. There is a need for mentioning at least a brief description about it. If it doesn't then a link to the orphan article Lymph heart can be put in the see also section.49.14.37.20 (talk) 11:21, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 December 2011

<request content removed>

Teena chandran (talk) 14:33, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

 Not done, since it was copied entirely from [4] and is therefore a copyright violation--Jac16888 ^Talk 14:38, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Sentence confusion

• History of Discoveries: "Blood flowed from both creating organs to all parts of the body, where it was consumed and there was no return of blood to the heart or liver." EH!??!?!??! --K.Nevelsteen (talk) 07:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Picture of Heart disection at the top of the article

Besides the fact that is likely to be erased from wiki commons over a dispute of its authorship and licensing status, I belive the picture is of lower quality than many of the diagrams already included in the article. If anything at least it shouldnt be at the top of the article page. --Jejljejl (talk) 03:46, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

The picture is of very poor quality and the writing over it does not enhance understanding. I do not see the need for the image since there is a plethora of other much better images, it will therefore be removed. CFCF (talk) 18:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Copy/Paste Error

The following text is duplicated from the introduction into the section dealing with the divided vertebrate heart. It clearly does not belong there.

In invertebrates that possess a circulatory system, the heart is typically a tube or small sac and pumps fluid that contains water and nutrients such as proteins, fats, and sugars. In insects, the "heart" is often called the dorsal tube and insect "blood" is almost always not oxygenated since they usually respirate (breathe) directly from their body surfaces (internal and external) to air. However, the hearts of some other arthropods (including spiders and crustaceans such as crabs and shrimp) and some other animals pump hemolymph, which contains the copper-based protein hemocyanin as an oxygen transporter similar to the iron-based hemoglobin in red blood cells found in vertebrates.

96.247.33.98 (talk) 06:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for pointing out a problem that's gone unfixed for over four months. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 07:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

common usage

I am going to start here.

Wikipedia states that common usage is required on wikipeadia. Not academic usage. All of the medical entries I have seen on Wikipedia are full of obscure Latin academic terms. Against Wikipedia Rules. I had a heart attack over a year ago. Reading about such things online was full of confusing jargon. All Medical Latin terminology is incomprehensible to the layman. I will be starting a campaign to simplify medical language in accordance with Wikipedia rules. It would be better if the medical profession would begin it. I really am sick of reading incomprehesible wikipedia articles about medical subjects. Especially when they are in direct contradiction of wikipedia guidlines. There is a rule about plain english here. Do you get the picture, MDs? Plain English. explain it in normal Language, or I will be editing it in plain english. and I might be wrong. I hope other will follow. so it would be better for the MDs to use plain english to start with.

68.71.8.38 (talk) 09:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

You might want to bring this up at the talk page of WikiProject Medicine, where many excellent contributors will see it. The manual of style for medical articles does indeed support providing plain-English explanations of technical terms. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 11:23, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Nerve Innervation

Please add nerves that innervate the heart, such as the vagus nerve and some other nerves.

Grammatical Errors

Before making additions, or changes, to this article, or any article, have someone with a degree in English, such as myself, proof-read the addition. It is for the grammatical errors on wikipedia that wikipedia is NOT ALLOWED as a source for thesis papers in grade school and/or college; it is not limited to this reason but is with the addition to a lack of thorough bibliographies to document your sources.

If you quote someone else's litterary writings, DO NOT EDIT THEIR grammatical mistakes within the quotes but, if you add something without quotes, paraphrased, correct any mistakes!

Evolution of the heart

How did the heart evolve in earlier life and become a specialized blood pumping organ? The article should make this clear.

That's a very good quesion, and one I don't think is covered adequately. For whatever reason, the movement of the blood circulation precedes the formation of the heart -- and this fact is really most curious. To explain this phenomenon, there are some who contend that the heart is not so much a pump, as a Hydraulic Ram -- an organ built-up from cumulative peripheral activity. See exerpt from link, below:

In 1932, Bremer of Harvard filmed the blood in the very early embryo circulating in self-propelled mode in spiralling streams before the heart was functioning. Amazingly, he was so impressed with the spiralling nature of the blood flow pattern that he failed to realize that the phenomena before him contradicted the pressure propulsion principle -- raising the spectre that the heart was not merely a pump forcing inert blood to move with pressure but that the blood was propelled with its own biological momentum -- as can be seen in the embryo, and boosts itself with induced momenta from the heart. The pressure does not cause the blood to circulate but is caused by interrupting the circulation. [5]

I propose to add more pictures that show well Truncus pulmonales and Aorta

There is too few pictures about real preparates. I feel ashamed about the quality of the current article. Need to take better pictures. Please, do it if you manage before me and upload here.

It is really useful to understand the relative position between the two and their walls from real preparates. You can make a lot of discussion about them which should be done.

Flow figures

I'm not really well versed in the subject, but the flow figures presented in the first line seems to be only for resting humans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.138.140.2 (talk) 22:47, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Human-centric

The article as it stands is almost entirely about the human heart. Even though it starts with a generic statement:

The heart is a vital muscular organ in humans and other animals

It continues with mammal- or human-specific detail:

The heart is located in the chest; specifically in the middle part or mediastinum....

The heart is divided into four main chambers...

With every heartbeat the heart pumps blood through both of the body's double circulatory systems.

I would propose that the bulk of the current article be moved to Human heart (currently a redirect back to this page), and that the article treat hearts across all animals in full generality. Obviously there is a lot of room for expansion. --Macrakis (talk) 18:17, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Oppose. The main article should concentrate on the human heart with a subarticle called "hearts in other animals". As we reading this are human we want to keep the articles human centric. We do the same for disease related articles. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:22, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Oppose - the main article should cover the human heart, seeing as most readers will be looking for such content. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 05:57, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Oppose, per CFCF. Of course, addition to Wikipedia of encyclopedic content regarding other animals would be most welcome. 86.134.200.29 (talk) 07:52, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Human heart

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Per this edit [6], the bold merge of human heart was merged into Heart which was reverted on this edit: [[7]], so I'm proposing this merge as a venue for discussion.

I am proposing this merge because:

• Having the content in a single place signficantly reduces duplication and improves readability and comprehensiveness, aiding end readers
• The article without the content in place was confusing, not comprehensive, and difficult to approach as a reader.
• The merge has been performed for some time and the article has received a large number of copyedits
• Undoing this would reverse the significant improvements in terms of comprehensivensss, readability and coverage that the expansion gave it
• Now that this article focuses on human anatomy, there's no need to have a unique article, Human heart, unless this article had a large enough amount of animal anatomy which would warrant it, which it doesn't and did not.

I invite the opinions of other users on this matter. In your responses, please consider the two articles at hand, this is not an RfC on the general state of anatomy articles. Kind regards, Tom (LT) (talk) 22:36, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support It was already merged as it should have been on Aug 28th, 2014. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:41, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support: No need for a split. Flyer22 (talk) 23:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support as per previous comments. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 09:59, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose, obviously, not having a page or at least a section on the human heart in the major encyclopedia of this world is beyond ridiculous. I think you are unaware that you are writing for readers, like translators, patients, journalists and so on. They need to be certain they're not using lizard heart terminology when they talk or write about the subject. A combined animal/human article can't possibly deliver on that. --Melody Lavender (talk) 10:50, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

This merge has already been performed. The discussion should be closed. --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:24, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:54, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Numbering of images and other suggestions

• Unsure why half the images were numbers?
• Also images should typically be set to default sizes or resized not using a fixed px number
• Unclear why all the bolding and caps in the captions
• Article parts need to be summarized and moved to subpages. 160,000 bytes is too big and due to slow load times reduces accessibility.
• Only the first word of a section heading should be capatalized

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:58, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

History

I know the article seems too large, but the history section only deals with ancient Greece alone. What about the rest of the world? The following people might deserve a brief mention for their important discoveries in cardiology:

• Jan Evangelista Purkyně
• Wilhelm His, Jr.
• Sunao Tawara
• Willem Einthoven (who received the Nobel Prize for inveting ECG)

-A1candidate (talk) 01:37, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I know a number of them are mentioned in the text (or at least their developments are), this could rather easily be moved to the history section and we wouldn't need to make the article longer. For example there are a few sentences about Otto Frank and Ernest Starling. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 06:08, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Overly technical content?

This article is about a medical/anatomical subject and therefore requires the use and link to terms that may be perceived as "jargon". The article takes very great care so that almost every single subject touched upon is explained before being used in the text. This means that sections may be impossible to simplify without losing information. We cannot simplify the content beyond it stating the truth - the heart, it's physiology and anatomy are complicated, and it may actually require some work to understand everything! The lede is another matter, and it also takes care here to be simple - although it may be possible to simplify it further, and I invite you to do so.

The banners the top of the page are used to invite editors to work on the page - something which is currently not really needed as there have been over 10 different editors over the last 48 hours. Instead of blanket adding such a banner and moving on, try and do something about it, and at least point out what is potentially too technical in nature. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 08:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I understand that it is painful to hear that the article is nearly unreadable for the uninvolved reader, but that is the case. We are not writing for experts. Just the first paragraph is that complex that many people will give up and leave. In its complexity, it fails to properly convey the information. Beside that, with your recent "simplifications", you have also introduced 13 links to disambiguation pages. The Banner talk 08:34, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't experience your telling me the article is unreadable painful, no.

What I will say is that you're approaching this from the wrong point of view. If we are to be an encyclopedia we need to supply the reader with information about the heart - hopefully beyond what they already know. To do this it is required that we introduce subjects that are new to many people - something which may require a reader takes time to learn certain aspects of the material.

You're not going to make this argument when it comes to mathematics, why would you on heart? Because most people have a rudimentary understanding of what a heart is, and not of different mathematical subjects?

We must assume that the reader is interested in learning about the heart, not just getting what most people already know: "The heart is a muscle. It pumps blood. If it does not pump blood you will die.". We aren't writing for kindergarteners. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 10:32, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

But then again this is where the links in articles come into their own. Every point doesn't need to be spoon-fed, a quick ref to a link will suffice in many instances and satisfy most readers. Iztwoz (talk) 12:36, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Solution is to summarize content without removing information

For example,

The heart is a vital muscular organ in humans and many other animals, which functions to pump blood around the body through the blood vessels of the circulatory system. In doing so, the blood is able to provide the body with oxygen and nutrients, as well as removing metabolic waste. The heart is located in the chest; specifically in the mediastinum, the middle compartment of the thorax.

This could be summarized as:

The heart is a vital muscular organ whose function is to pump blood around the circulatory system of the body, thereby providing it with oxygen and nutrients while removing harmful metabolic waste. In humans, the heart is located in the mediastinum of the thoracic cavity.

Notice that no important information is left out and it appears more readable to both experts and non-experts alike.

-A1candidate (talk)

Yes, and I agree your wording is better - and as you point out it increases readability for experts and non-experts. It doesn't remove anything essential which is the important point. I admit work can be done throughout the article, just not that it is unreadable by non-experts–especially as I have a hard time understanding what would constitute said "expert". Most of the text was sourced from an introductory college text-book: Are people in their first pre-med course "experts"? -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 20:03, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I think the WP:TECHNICAL page is relevant here, including the section on writing one level down (without dumbing down, I would add). Personally, I think accessibility of vital articles such as this, which are likely to attract a very broad readership, is really relevant. Though that's not to say I find it especially easy... 86.134.200.29 (talk) 14:33, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Hormones of the heart

The article doesn't seem to mention any hormones of the heart, such as Atrial natriuretic peptide. I don't know if any similar substances secreted by the heart exist, but they are worth a mention amid all the medical information (I'd say it falls under 'physiology'). --Abderrahman (talk) 23:04, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's definitely an oversight. I don't know really how much detail we should go into though. Is it enough for a section on hormones? Should it go together with hormonal effects on the heart or with baroreceptors? -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 06:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd say a section on hormones that goes into details (or perhaps a "main article" link above that goes to Wiki page on cardiac hormones). There are substances that the heart secretes, like ANP, and substances that are secreted from other organs but are directly linked to the vascular system (such as the renin-angiotensin system), neither of which are mentioned. --Abderrahman (talk) 17:20, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

the heart apex orientation from an evolutionary prospective.

The shape of the heart and its apex orientation in erected organisms (vertical) could probably tell us that we have evolved from quadruped animals; where the heart would be connected from its top atriums to the major blood vessels in a horizontal fashion.Taissirn (talk) 17:58, 21 September 2014 (UTC).

From the knuckle-walking entry -This leads scientists to conclude that chimpanzees evolved knuckle-walking after they split from humans 6 million years ago, and humans evolved upright walking without knuckle-walking. Iztwoz (talk) 20:43, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Hate to be a spoilsport, but unless you find a quality reference for this it is nonsense. May I suggest a Comparative anatomy book? -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 07:35, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

There are two references given in the Human evolution section. Iztwoz (talk) 07:39, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

and it isn't stated anywhere that scientists' conclusions are infallible. Iztwoz (talk) 07:41, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but I'm not seeing anything about the heart in that article. What I meant is that if you want to state that the heart is positioned as it is because of evolution from quadruped to biped we need a proper source that says so. If we don't have a source expressly stating so, we are engaging in original research. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 17:53, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Page numbers

Are usually needed for textbooks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:40, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I suppose you mean the CNX book? I added the pages, but its quite a significant range of over 50 pages. Much of the text is copied directly, and the question is if each reference needs it own page number or if the range is okay? -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 15:24, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I am trying to find the part that support "The heart beats at a rate of 60 to 90 beats per minute (at rest)." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:14, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, I can't find it there either. Guyton gives both 70 and 72 as normal resting heart rates. That is a bit narrow for me, but I'm having trouble finding something better. I've added cn to two statements I will clear up in the coming days. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 08:27, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Number of chambers

Since we mention who has 4 chambers we should mention some that do not IMO. No strong feelings. Feel free to revert me if you disagree. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Size of article

Agree with Doc James that size of article is too large. At the moment there is a tremendous amount of repetition which once removed would make the article smaller. But that aside still feel in agreement with Doc James that much of the content could be left (in the subpages) or moved to the subpages and more use made of summaries. Also feel that images are oversized - I would think that most computers have zoom-in functions. Iztwoz (talk) 16:21, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I think for starters we could trim the Heart in animals section, as it goes into unnecessary detail. We could move the rest to Heart (zootomy)

Looking into where we can remove repetition. As for images, I'm on a rather big screen and they currently look tiiiny to me, and I do think some of the very wide images are treated poorly by being set to 300px. I will see how I can solve this, maybe by splitting them - although this isn't ideal either. Also remember to look at WP:SIZE, which only takes into account the size of the prose. - -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 17:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

What is "zootomy"? Do you mean Hearts in other animals?

With respect to images size we have Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Images#Size. Some of us are on long narrow screens. Once we get some of the sections split off and summarized we can look at increasing the size using upright=1.2 to 1.4

Also you can increase the size of images you see under your preferences.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:27, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Zootomy is the technical term of animal anatomy, but sure - that may be a better name. At least before I haven't been able to increase them beyond 300px. Glad to see the good work on the article. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 06:33, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Having since had the proposed expanded scope discussion on the project talkpage I am in agreement with CFCF's suggestion of moving the content from Other animals to Heart (zootomy). There is a Wikimedia Commons page with the title Zootomy. It would be then possible for any other similar moves to be made without the need for expanded scope of what would then be (human) anatomy. This would remove a lot of distractions....there would be no need to make constant refs to...in humans ....no need to give mention to other animals in the lead. One hatnote could just direct to relevant zootomy page. Also the relevant material from the anatomy page could be copied to the zootomy page. A different section could be used in place of Other animals - Comparative anatomy - which would give space for inclusion of similarities. Have also seen recently on the Small intestine page a proposed split into human and non-human pages I think the zootomy option is the preferred choice. Iztwoz (talk) 06:47, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I really like this suggestion, the question is if we can get it through. I think we need a larger anatomy section of WP:MEDMOS, where we can have all these ideas written down. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 16:29, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Too large

Could we limit the physiology section to important concepts such as:

• Role in cardiovascular system

• Cardiac muscle

• Electrical conduction system and ECGs

• Heart Sounds

• Heart Rates

• Cardiac cycle

• Stroke Volume, Preload, Contractility, Afterload (all are important but should be merged into single section)

-A1candidate (talk) 01:50, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, A1candidate. How's the article looking now? --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:55, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Hypervagaltonia redirected here

Why is "hypervagotonia" (also called "hypervagaltonia", I think) redirected to this article when it does not even mention the condition? If redirected anywhere, it should be to Vasovagal response, though it's not mentioned there, either. It seems like the article Vagotonia superficially discusses the condition (the article is a stub), but without adding the "hyper" prefix. After all, we all have vagal tone, but not all of us have hypervagotonia / hypervagaltonia. Please explain the rational for treating hypovagotonia / hypervagaltonia in this way. Thank you for your time, Wordreader (talk) 15:06, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for your observation, Wordreader. In the future you can always be bold and make such changes yourself. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:58, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Moving some content to Heart rate

I've moved some content to Heart rate and am considering moving more information about the 'cardiovascular centres' to the child article, I think it is too detailed for this overview article, and maybe a simplified version could remain. Are there any thoughts on this? --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

My thoughts are .... Right on! Iztwoz (talk) 18:54, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Calcium stores

Cardiac muscle stores few calcium ions -- stated in text and at odds with info on sarcoplasmic reticulum that states it contains large stores and gives two refs......?? --Iztwoz (talk) 21:38, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done clarified. Not sure what the original text was trying to say. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:51, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Dubious

Currently the article states a safe heart rate during exercise is between 120-160, varying with age. How does it vary, and where are these numbers from? Who says a short duration heart rate of >200bpm is bad? This is often reached in interval training among athletes. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 15:24, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for pointing this out, CFCF. I've removed most of that uncited content and provided a reference. Heart rates in exercise will increase but should not increase to more than 200 unless a person is very unfit. Such a high heart rate is dangerous in my understanding. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:06, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Cardiac skeleton

"The cardiac skeleton is made of dense connective tissue and this gives structure to the heart. It forms the atrioventricular septum which separates the right from the left heart, and the fibrous rings which serve as bases for the four heart valves"

A minor point, but the cardiac skeleton separates the atria from the ventricles, and not the left and right sides of the heart as the article currently suggests.Chriswbusby (talk) 18:10, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

You are so right! Thank you --Iztwoz (talk) 20:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Having read a bit further down the article, I've found the following:

"The two valves that separate the atria and ventricles are the tricuspid and mitral valves. In diastole these are both open, allowing blood to flow between the atria into the ventricles. Approximately 70–80 percent of ventricular filling occurs by this method."

In a normal heart, all of the blood entering the ventricles comes from the atria and enters through the tricuspid/mitral valves during diastole. The last sentence should probably just be removed - unless someone can explain where the other 20-30% comes from. Chriswbusby (talk) 21:55, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I was a little confused when I read that myself (it comes from the CNX source that supplied the original text for most of this article). I took it to mean that the ventricles fill passively 70-80% and then 20-30% is due to active atrial contraction. That said I wasn't too sure what it meant myself. I'll find another source and then see where that goes. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:29, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Nervous supply

I'm wondering if we should move some of the information about how the heart is innervated from the 'heart rate' section to a new 'nervous supply' subsection... that way we can separate the anatomy from physiology and also focus more on the influences rather than how the nerves innervate the heart. Any thoughts on this? --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:15, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Physiology section still too long

In my opinion this article is still too long (by which I mean, it is very wordy, and unlikely to be read in part or full for that reason). A lot of details could be moved to child articles. What are the opinions about moving some of the physiology content to the child articles? Some areas I think that would be suitable are:

• Areas about the cardiac cycle and heart rate. There's a huge section on the cardiac cycle and heart rate that could be moved to the child article, and then simplified here
• Areas about cardiac muscle and action potentials. In my view some of the information here could be condensed, and the rest moved to the child article Cardiac muscle

Thoughts? Any other ideas / areas that can be condensed? --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• • Completely agree with all your points - some (or many) of the sections tagged with a main article note are much longer than the main article itself....apart from all else this paves the way for all those articles to be merged here - which imo would not be a good thing. The main articles need to be main articles. Iztwoz (talk) 20:50, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Agree. The first thing will be to combine the subsections 'blood flow', 'cardiac cycle' and 'cardiac output'. The next will be to combine the subsections 'electrical conduction' and 'heart rate'. I think when combined there will be a fair amount of duplication or unnecessary detail. I'll get to that in a day or two. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:44, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
      •  Doing... -- I won't combine them, but I have shortened them and removed duplicate content. --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:16, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2015

in the structure paragraph change left heart to left side of the heart as we don't have 2 heart 90.209.47.89 (talk) 07:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

By tradition the two functioning sides of the heart are referred to as the right heart and the left heart.--Iztwoz (talk) 07:41, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand

I was surpised and I do not agree with the removal of my changes: do you prefer to have the notes with all those mistakes, rather than appreciate the correction of a user in it.wiki led to the recognition of voice quality? I'm very sorry, but I do not understand at all your behavior, making collaboration difficult. Best regards--Geoide (talk) 19:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Edit request for semi-protected "Heart", under "Society and culture". February 12, 2016

  In Society and culture
  Under Symbolism:

    Quoting the paragraph: "In Egyptian religion, the heart was the key to the afterlife. It was conceived as surviving death in the nether world, where it gave evidence for, or against, its possessor. It was thought that the heart was examined by Anubis and a variety of deities during the Weighing of the Heart ceremony. If the heart weighed more than the feather of Maat, which symbolized the ideal standard of behavior. If the scales balanced, it meant the heart's possessor had lived a just life and could enter the afterlife; if the heart was heavier, it would be devoured by the monster Ammit."

  "It was thought that the heart was examined by Anubis and a variety of deities during the Weighing of the Heart ceremony. If the heart weighed more than the feather of Maat, which symbolized the ideal standard of behavior."
 This has a grammar error. There is an uncompleted thought. Please change it to: "It was thought that the heart was examined by Anubis and a variety of deities during the Weighing of the Heart ceremony to see if the heart weighed more than the feather of Maat, which symbolized the ideal standard of behavior."

 Or, since that is pretty long, something like "It was thought that the heart was examined by Anubis and a variety of deities during the Weighing of the Heart ceremony. This was to see if the heart weighed more than the feather of Maat, which symbolized the ideal standard of behavior."

 If there was an end to that thought and this was simply a mistake of forgetting, please re-do that part and include the rest of it.

 Also, what if the heart were lighter than the feather? This piece of information is missing, and it would be good to know. This is simply a suggestion, and I have not provided any information on this. It should not need any citations, and as for the rest of this request, I simply am wanting to have a grammar error fixed.

66.168.97.94 (talk) 12:36, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 13:57, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

”Diseases of the heart are primarily treated by cardiologists“

I'm really not too sure about this statement, currently in the lead. At least in my neck of the woods, I'd say general practitioners carry a fair share of the load. In addition cardiothoracic surgeons are involved in a lot of surgical management, and intensivists in the management of cardiac arrest and tamponade. Cardiologists are indeed specialists of the heart, but I am not sure if they are the ones that 'primarily' treat disease. Perhaps a better wording would be:

Doctors that specialise in the heart are called cardiologists. Many other medical professionals are involved in treating diseases of the heart, including doctors such as general practitioners, cardiothoracic surgeons and intensivists, and allied health practitioners including physiotherapists and dieticians.

If there are no objections I may make this change in a day or two. --Tom (LT) (talk) 14:06, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

 Done added to 'clinical significance'

Did another rewrite so that the lede has the same content. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 16:57, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Evolution?

I came here looking for some detail on the evolution of the heart, how it came about, what drove the development, and so on, but there's not a lot in the article on that. Maybe something that could be added. Thanks!  — Amakuru (talk) 07:15, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Merge sections

Is there any reason that sinoatrial node has a separate section from electrical conduction section - info on sa node is repeated from conduction, and other info in sa node section is better placed in conduction ? --Iztwoz (talk) 21:43, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Not an ideal title. However I was trying to group together information about how a cardiac action potential is generated. I'm not sure what section this should go it. I guess a section "Creation of a heartbeat". I put it in heart rate because it is related to the heartrate rather than conduction of an existing action potential. I hope that makes sense... what are your thoughts? --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:50, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I still think that SA node info would be better placed in elect conduction. Influences could be changed to heart rate. Also think that acton potential belongs to elect conduction. Also, I've been looking through ref for info on 'without ....innervation HR would be 100bpm can find nothing? Other heart related pages make no mention of this or I should say I cannot find any - info from cardiovascular centres says innervation only occurs when stimulated. Any light available? --Iztwoz (talk) 21:24, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Illustrations

The caption for the GIF "3D echocardiogram" [Apikal4D.gif] is wrong. It describes "right", "top left", and "top right" portions, when there is only one portion on the right. This makes me sad. (I feel that calling all "wikipedians", or contributors, "editors" is a mistake -- WP desperately needs real editors.) I could guess the correction, but I don't do that. Sadsaque (talk) 12:51, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Heart/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jclemens (talk · contribs) 05:35, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

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.	Issues identified, awaiting resolution. Improved as requested.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lead identified as long enough, but not comprehensively addressing all portions of the article. Update: IAR accepting this, because with this length and importance of an article, the alternatives are to a) short-change the existing coverage to add coverage of culture, cuisine, art, and such, or b) lengthen the lead further to cover those topics, or c) remove coverage of those topics from the article. THUS, my decision is that the existing lead appropriately summarizes the core points of the article, while complying with the MOS for lead length.
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.	Generally good throughout, with a few identified exceptions. Unreferenced sections have been referenced appropriately now.
	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).	A couple of dead links have been identified for revision. Fixed.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Other than the unreferenced sections towards the end of the article, no original research has been identified.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	No copyvio identified with automated tools--single hit appears to be a mirror of a prior version of the article, complete with Wikipedia markup.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Good, comprehensive article on the human heart
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	I'm pretty sure some of the sections should be moved into other articles. After discussion, calling this a pass.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No issues noted.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No issues noted.
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.	All reviewed, no defects or concerns found.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Excellent selection.
	7. Overall assessment.	Not going to let the technicalities of lead length/coverage hold this article up from passing. It's come a long way.

Initial Thoughts

• Lead delves too much into some of the topics, but does not touch on everything in the entire article, and it's already pretty large. This is going to be a challenge to rewrite well, so I wanted to highlight this up front. Jclemens (talk) 05:58, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  •  Done How is it now? I removed a lot of extraneous information --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:01, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
• this shows 2 dead links, and ref #4 also appears to have a 404 output that is not correctly detected by that script. Jclemens (talk) 06:20, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  •  Done fixed the two dead links. Ref #4 isn't a 404 at my end? --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:01, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
• Lead and body differ on number of chambers in a fish heart (2 vs. 4). Jclemens (talk) 06:20, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  •  Done clarified in the fish section. --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:01, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, thanks very much for taking up this mammoth review of a very complex organ. I'm reassured when I see the huge amount of reviews, barnstars and GA nominations that this will be a thorough and systematic review. Please take your time and be systematic and I'll try and address your concerns as we go. If you could be specific when you mention something that will make this easier to address. IF you're not sure about something you can ask here or at WT:MED or WT:ANAT for some help. Iztwoz and CFCF were both significant editors to this article and may help with the review. I look forward to your review :) --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:50, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Heh, or I'll just break out my own Netter's or related works. I'm not a zoologist or an anatomist, but I am a practicing clinician and have access to a wide variety of professional medical resources on the topic. Jclemens (talk) 09:02, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Great to hear. I should add most of my work and responses will be on the weekends, --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:21, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

First detailed text read-through

Lead

• "the human heart is located in the middle compartment of the mediastinum in the chest"
• "In a healthy heart blood flows one way through the heart" Wouldn't there be a comma after the first heart?
• I think describing all of four-chambered heart circulation and mechanical action in paragraph 3 of the lead is likely to be a good spot to trim, in order to make room to cover the parts of the article not currently summarized in the lead. I note that the entire paragraph seems to be referring to the mammalian/bird heart.

BTW, I completely endorse updating the lead LAST. Jclemens (talk) 19:09, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

As an update on this, I like how the lead reads currently, but it does not even begin to touch on history, culture, or non-human hearts. How do you think that should be addressed? Jclemens (talk) 21:33, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Structure

Done Resolved

Structure section: first sentence needs to specify human heart.  Done --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:06, 30 July 2016 (UTC) You might note that human lung has only two lobes on the left vs. three on the right, rather than just noting its smaller volume... or you might not. I didn't know that until I took A&P for the first time and thought it was really cool, so that may just be my subjectivity.  Not done an interesting piece of information (don't forget the lingula of the left lung though), but the article is already information dense as it is, so I will leave this out. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:06, 30 July 2016 (UTC) "The heart is supplied by the coronary circulation" Supplied with what? Its own myocardial blood supply, obviously, but the sentence reads a bit awkwardly since coronary circulation gets its own section later, while the pericardium is discussed immediately and in detail.  Done Removed - this is discussed in the article below anyway. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:06, 30 July 2016 (UTC) "A stethoscope can be placed directly over the apex so that the heartbeats can be counted." That's funny, I can count heartbeats adequately with my stethoscope placed pretty much anywhere in the anterior thorax. Is there something this is trying to get across I'm missing?  Done removed for the reason you state, and this is mentioned elsewhere anyway and doesn't actually relate that much to structure. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:06, 30 July 2016 (UTC) Unlike the other important structures of the heart, I really don't see a unified paragraph anywhere describing the pericardium. References to pericardial structure, function, and pathology seem to be scattered throughout the article. Supposed to be the short section at the end of the heart wall part. Admittedly this is outweighed by the much lengthier eart muscle section.--Tom (LT) (talk) 00:06, 30 July 2016 (UTC) "Cardiac muscle tissue has autorhythmicity, the unique ability to initiate a cardiac action potential at a fixed rate – spreading the impulse rapidly from cell to cell to trigger the contraction of the entire heart. This autorhythmicity is still modulated by the endocrine and nervous systems.[7]" This is absolutely true, but are we at the right level here? How does a less educated reader get that cardiac muscle tissue tends to beat despite the lack of external stimulus? Are we writing at too high of a grade level here?  Done good point - I've reworded, reordered and simplified this section. These influences were already mentioned in the sentence before anyway --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:06, 30 July 2016 (UTC) Atria and ventricles should be introduced in the overall 'structure' section before being referred to in the 'heart wall' subsection.  Partly done I have named the start section and moved the heart wall section down. How is it now? --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:06, 30 July 2016 (UTC) Valves "These muscles prevent the valve from falling back into the atrium." How about adding 'during ventricular contraction'? Or just leaving this off as the entire action of the papillary muscles is covered two paragraphs down in more detail?  Done reworded, reordered and grouped this information. How is it now? --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:37, 30 July 2016 (UTC) pulmonary valve, pulmonary artery, and aortic valve are all wikilinked. Should we not also wikilink aorta for symmetry?  Done --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:37, 30 July 2016 (UTC) in the Right Heart section, there's a pretty detailed discussion of perinatal changes in fetal circulation. I get that the remnant parts are appropriate to discuss in the context of landmarks of the right atrium, but I wonder if, like the pericardium, fetal circulation would benefit from an entire section discussing it in detail.  Done moved to 'Development' subsection. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:28, 31 July 2016 (UTC) "While most ventricular filling occurs while the atria are relaxed, they do demonstrate a contractile phase when they actively pump blood into the ventricles just prior to ventricular contraction." So is this about the right heart or both? It's in the right heart section, but it also makes it seem like the 'atrial kick' is just an afterthought.  Done moved & deleted. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:28, 31 July 2016 (UTC) Similar to the above, do we need to discuss the action of the chordae tendineae and papillary muscles again? The 'right heart' section is a subsection to 'valves', which is where I believe the action should be discussed in most detail.  Done removed - duplication. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:37, 30 July 2016 (UTC) "When the right ventricle contracts, it ejects blood into the pulmonary artery, which branches into the left and right pulmonary arteries that carry it to each lung." I know the antecedent reference is likely correct, but wouldn't 'that blood' be clearer than 'it'?  Done --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:37, 30 July 2016 (UTC) Why are we discussing the pulmonary valve yet again at the end of the right heart section? We just covered it above.  Partly done left the reference, removed the explanation. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:37, 30 July 2016 (UTC) Left Heart "Only the left atrial appendage contains pectinate muscles. " Which do what? Actually, I can't even tell from following that wikilink, which 1) seems to contradict that statement, and 2) doesn't actually mention what they DO do.  Done altered to clarify and cited. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:28, 31 July 2016 (UTC) Coronary circulation section seems to be a bit terse overall.  Done agree - fixed, and added information on lymphatic drainage to boot. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:28, 31 July 2016 (UTC) Final thoughts on the Structure section and its subsections: We have a lot of overlap and redundancy here, and so a lot of things have scattered mentions throughout, rather than concentrated discussion in one place. It probably is about the right length overall, but could stand to be reorganized, a few redundancies trimmed, and a few things fleshed out a bit. Again, the whole section only refers to the human heart, which I get that the article is using as a baseline and discussing how other non-human hearts differ. I haven't gone through the references in detail, but really have just been concentrating on the flow of topics. Thanks. Many sections probably need a bit more organising throughout the article - the current state is a result of the attention this article gets and a the numerous editors which have worked on it. Animal hearts are discussed at the end. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:37, 30 July 2016 (UTC) Those changes and responses look reasonable, but it may take me a bit to get back to them, as I intend to keep going through section-by-section for a first pass before reexamining any of these sections. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 01:36, 30 July 2016 (UTC) I will try to do at least one additional section per day, but will be in class for the next few days. I think work on this section is going to be relatively self-contained, so if my questions prompt changes, feel free to start in on them. Jclemens (talk) 19:51, 27 July 2016 (UTC)  Done concluding comments - thanks for the thorough review. I hope the section has improved. Happy to respond to any comments & await your second pass later on in the review. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:28, 31 July 2016 (UTC) Looks good in this section. I made a couple of minor changes that weren't worth bugging you about. This section is a pass. Jclemens (talk) 19:22, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Development section

Done Resolved

Of the sections, my personal familiarity with this is weak. The text seems reasonable and straightforward. Can you move the Embryo-fetal heart rate chart down to correspond with its supporting text? Right now, the left and right sided images compress the text between them in my browser view, and are followed by, well, no other images in this section. Jclemens (talk) 02:07, 29 July 2016 (UTC)  Partly done I have removed the heart rate image which is just a reflection of the text and doesn't add anything to the article, and moved and enlarged the second image. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:30, 31 July 2016 (UTC) This is fine, I have no further proposals for this section. Jclemens (talk) 19:26, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Physiology section

Done Resolved

You've got a choice to make: Where is blood flow discussed, in the Structure of Physiology section? Trying to cover it in both would be redundant. It's possible to combine the sections, and discuss the heart part-by-part covering both anatomy and function as well. I'm pretty sure that covering blood flow twice isn't the right way to go about it, though.  Partly done I have removed and transferred some content from the 'structure' section. I try and follow the structure & function scheme for most anatomy articles that I edit because it is the easiest for readers to understand. I makes logical sense to put it all together, but it ends up being more complicated to read. So I've tried to keep the "structural" information about blood flow (A->B -> C) and then information about the oxygenation of blood in the physiology section. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:51, 31 July 2016 (UTC) Oh, and Human cardiac physiology should probably be specified up top. Standard in most anatomy articles and implied by the presence of 'other animals' section. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:26, 3 August 2016 (UTC) The Blood Flow subsection seems to imply that only the systemic circulation branches into ever-smaller divisions.  Done clarified. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:51, 31 July 2016 (UTC) Shouldn't the first section of the Cardiac Cycle subsection specify ventricular systole and diastole? Or, even better and a concurrent improvement, cover atrial function too? The image shows how they overlap and interact better than the current text of the subsection does, I fear.  Done clarified. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:51, 31 July 2016 (UTC) "This causes a rise in pressure in the ventricles, and in ventricular systole blood will be pumped into the pulmonary artery." And the Aorta? Are we leaving it out on purpose?  Done clarified. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:51, 31 July 2016 (UTC) In Cardiac Output: "The average cardiac output, using an average SV of about 70mL, is 5.25 L/min, with a range of 4.0–8.0 L/min." Shouldn't that be an "average range" or "normal range"?  Done clarified. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:51, 31 July 2016 (UTC) "Preload can also be affected by a person's hydration status." True, but wouldn't "circulating blood volume" or something like that be more accurate?  Done clarified. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:51, 31 July 2016 (UTC) "Positive inotropes that cause stronger contractions include high blood calcium and drugs such as Digoxin, which will act to stimulate the sympathetic nerves in the fight-or-flight response." I'm not sure fight-or-flight belongs in this sentence, as while it may be one sort of sympathetic response causing positive inotropy, it's far from the only one and is unrelated to the others previously mentioned... so it needs to be moved around if it is to be mentioned at all, I suspect.  Done Yes, a strange one. I've changed it to the more common inotropes we all think about (eg adrenaline), sourced it, and removed some additional material. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:42, 14 August 2016 (UTC) In Electrical conduction: "In the ventricles the signal is carried by specialized tissue called the Purkinje fibers which then transmit the electric charge to the cardiac muscle." Cardiac muscle is not mentioned in the atrial physiology, at the start of the paragraph. I think it can either safely be taken out, OR it should be made clear that both atrial and ventricular contraction rely on cardiac muscle.  Done clarified. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:26, 3 August 2016 (UTC) Is the Sinoatrial Node subsection really the best place to talk about depolarization, ion pumps, and action potentials?  Done renamed to 'heart rate'. --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:34, 2 August 2016 (UTC) Is the Sinoatrial Node subsection really the best place to introduce troponins?  Partly done have not changed this introduction, but I have expanded the 'blood tests' section far below it which provides greater information. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:42, 14 August 2016 (UTC) In the Influences section: "Norepinephrine binds to the beta–1 receptor. High blood pressure medications are used to block these receptors and so reduce the heart rate." Unless the reader already knows about beta blockers, do we expect them to correctly connect these two adjacent sentences?  Done removed. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:26, 3 August 2016 (UTC) The final paragraph in the Influences section seems a bit terse: People other than athletes can have bpm's lower than 60, although many of them are quite sick.  Done removed? can't find it as I'm editing. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:51, 31 July 2016 (UTC) Most of the Influences section seem to be cited to reference #7.  Comment. yes, this is an artefact of the way the article started. We used a public domain source to provide some of the anatomy and physiology information, then significantly edited, reorganised and sliced the article up. But many references remain. --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:34, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

• In the Heart Sounds subsection, the illustration "File:2029 Cardiac Cycle vs Heart Sounds.jpg" seems like it would be better suited here than in Cardiac Output, above.
  •  Question: this is such a classic representation of the cardiac cycle I'm inclined to leave it there. I do however have a question - it seems we have two images - cardiac cycle against ECG (one in cardiac cycle, one in ECG). I think I should remove one. I find the current one at the top not very useful. What's your opinion on what should be chopped? --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:34, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
    • I'm OK with how it looks now. I don't know that any image in particular needs to go. Jclemens (talk) 21:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Overall, there's a lot to work on here, both in terms of figuring out what goes where, but also in terms of making sure that the text is clear and complete. Again, feel free to start working on identified problems at any point, as I continue marching through the text. Jclemens (talk) 03:18, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review. Some of the influences section could be moved to a 'nerve supply' section above. I will think about it and update the article in a day or two when I come to a resolution.--Tom (LT) (talk) 05:34, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Still  Doing... --Tom (LT) (talk) 20:11, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
    •  Done --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:42, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Clinical Significance

Done Resolved

Is this section titled properly? It really seems to be about diseases and their diagnosis and treatment. It's an attempt to find the best name which most readers can understand to capture these things. See WP:MEDMOS#Anatomy. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:58, 31 July 2016 (UTC) Does this article use US or UK English variants? Either is fine, but I see we seem to have a mixture. As far as I know this isn't a requirement of a GA review - please (please, please) do not make me spend hours and hours trawling through this article to correct this. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:58, 31 July 2016 (UTC) In Disease, lots of overlinkage, and we don't need a roll call of medical professionals who treat heart conditions. I disagree here. Unfortunately there is a lot to mention - I don't think we're overlinking pointlessly, nor duplicating previous mentions. I think it's very pertinent to mention the main professionals involved in care - and we haven't listed THAT many, really. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:58, 31 July 2016 (UTC) "In the worst case this may cause cardiac arrest, a sudden and utter loss of output from the heart." Would not hurt to mention consequent unconsciousness and death except in cases of rapid intervention. I think that's a little dramatic and I try to avoid disease mentioning "which in the worst case could lead to death" (Which most can) - and similarly even rapid intervention is not very effective for sudden cardiac arrest, unfortunately. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:58, 31 July 2016 (UTC) Should heart murmurs be combined with heart sounds, above? No, because I try very hard to keep what's physiological and what's pathological separate. Otherwise things get very lengthy & complicated very fast, as every sentence has to have an exception clause... makes it very difficult to read for unacquainted readers--Tom (LT) (talk) 07:58, 31 July 2016 (UTC) "An irregular rhythm is classified as atrial or ventricular fibrillation depending if the electrical activity originates in the atria or the ventricles." Pretty sure there are more arrhythmias than that.  Done Oh dear. Attempted to fix. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:58, 31 July 2016 (UTC) The Diagnosis section could stand to summarize its subsections. History is a bare wikilink, and blood testing is not specifically called out at all.  Done added blood tests. Definitely worthy of mentioning --Tom (LT) (talk) 02:03, 14 August 2016 (UTC)  Question: If I expand the initial summary, I run the risk of oversummarising - eg in the lead, clinical significance lead, and subsections. Maybe I should just remove the standalone sentence entirely? --Tom (LT) (talk) 02:03, 14 August 2016 (UTC) In Examination, what joint sign is significant enough to mention when we don't discuss dependent edema?  Done below? --Tom (LT) (talk) 02:03, 14 August 2016 (UTC) Isn't any BP measuring device a sphygmomanometer? Our article on that topic seems to think so.  Done good pickup. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:08, 2 August 2016 (UTC) Palpation and "felt for any transmitted vibrations" are both used in this subsection, but not tied to each other.  Done --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:08, 2 August 2016 (UTC) Auscultation, on the other hand, is explained twice.  Done --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:08, 2 August 2016 (UTC) "A normal heart has two hearts sounds - additional heart sounds or heart murmurs may also be able to be heard." Ugh. Take this sentence out and shoot it, please. :-) Or at least completely rewrite it.  Done how does the new sentence sound? --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:08, 2 August 2016 (UTC) "Additional tests may be conducted to assess a person's heart murmurs if they are present, and signs of peripheral heart disease such as swollen feet or fluid in the lungs may be assessed." Oh, wait, we DO see edema, finally. However, I'm pretty sure this should say peripheral signs of heart disease, since I've never seen a peripheral heart, let alone a diseased one. (Sorry, this section is making me a bit snarky, I know it's not your fault)  Done Hah, ok I have reworded to "peripheral signs" --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:08, 2 August 2016 (UTC) Electrocardiogram Do we need to say that the heart's electrical activity is complex?  Done no we don't. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:08, 2 August 2016 (UTC) 10 wires are typically attached to the body for a 12-lead ECG. 4 limb leads including a ground, and V1-V6.  Done --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:08, 2 August 2016 (UTC) I'm not sure I'd call T or P waves "points" on an ECG. Features, perhaps?  Done good point. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:08, 2 August 2016 (UTC) I've always heard QRS described as solely ventricular depolarization, and that atrial repolarization was "lost" in the relatively larger electrical discharge.  Done clarified. --Tom (LT) (talk) 02:03, 14 August 2016 (UTC) Deflection upwards or downwards depends on the direction of the electrical flow relative to the lead in question.  Done attempted to clarify... definitely not my best writing though. --Tom (LT) (talk) 02:03, 14 August 2016 (UTC) "Testing when exercising can be used to provoke an abnormality" With all the overlinking scattered around this article, I'm surprised there's no wikilink to cardiac stress tests here.  Done reworded. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:08, 2 August 2016 (UTC) "...if a rhythm abnormality is suspected to be present but not present at the time of assessment."  Done clarified. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:08, 2 August 2016 (UTC) Imaging I would think that the fact that an echocardiogram is essentially an ultrasound of the heart should be mentioned up front. I've never seen a cardiac PET, but rather a lot of SPECT. Traditional angiography seems to have largely given way to MRA, so from my experience, the modalities are listed in least to most commonly used order, backwards of what I would expect.  Done thanks & good point - I have reversed and clarified that echocardiograms are ultrasound. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:08, 2 August 2016 (UTC) Treatment Why are we mentioning digoxin if we're not going to go into what it does and why it's less typically used now?not done}}  Not done other than Aspirin, Digoxin is probably the most classic of the cardiac drugs that is still widely used. How it works is not yet Overall, this section doesn't seem to be differentiating well between long-term treatments and emergent interventions. GTN, really? Is that really used anywhere as a synonym for NTG, or did we just have a dyslexic contributor somewhere along the line. I note that it wikilinks properly...  Comment. is it really used? Yes, in my locality. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:08, 2 August 2016 (UTC) I'm not sure if we want to go into statins and cholesterol-lowering drugs here at all. The section is large and confusing enough without them. I disagree. Statins and cholesterol-lowering drugs are often an essential part of treatment of cardiac disease, which often involves some form of secondary or tertiary prevention. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:08, 2 August 2016 (UTC) Likewise, I'm not sure how much we really want to go into prevention in a treatment section. I'd prefer that we cover prevention separately if we're going to go into it. See above. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:08, 2 August 2016 (UTC) At least in the systems where I work, Novel Anticoagulation (NOAC) is deprecated, and target-specific anticoagulation (TSAC) was proposed as the alternative, after there was a misinterpretation of the abbreviation NOAC as meaning "no Anticoagulation". Not sure where the RS'es are on this one yet.  Comment. Still current in my locality, although it will probably switch to an alternate form eventually. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:08, 2 August 2016 (UTC) Surgery "In this operation, one or more arteries surrounding the heart that have becominge narrowed are bypassed."  Done ... and that's enough for tonight. Jclemens (talk) 04:44, 30 July 2016 (UTC)  Doing... --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:08, 2 August 2016 (UTC)  Done happy to discuss some of the points above, looking forward to responses. --Tom (LT) (talk) 02:03, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

History

Done Resolved

Ancient entire section is unsourced.  Done --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:09, 2 August 2016 (UTC) Modern Otto Frank is wikilinked to Anne Frank's father, a separate person. Apologies to the Ottos for this oversight. This mistake was corrected ottologously (ie by myself).--Tom (LT) (talk) 07:09, 2 August 2016 (UTC) The description of pathologies and their treatments seem quite brief... but not terribly representative. Not too sure what to do with this one. Unfortunately I'm not a historian yet either to fully expand it (there is however a book you can buy titled "History of the Heart" I found during research), but I'd say this section conveys the main milestones and is suitably broad for GA. --Tom (LT) (talk) 02:05, 14 August 2016 (UTC) Overall, this section doesn't seem to contribute a lot to the article, and my knowledge of this is admittedly sparse. Jclemens (talk) 04:28, 31 July 2016 (UTC) See my comments below on this :). --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:09, 2 August 2016 (UTC)  Done --Tom (LT) (talk) 02:05, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Society and Culture

• Symbolism No real comments here. Ancient Egyptian thought seems to get relatively more weight. Well, Broken Heart and Cupid seem grafted onto the end of cross-cultural descriptions of heart significance.
• Food Well referenced, and feels like it belongs in a completely different article. Jclemens (talk) 04:28, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

How about we break this entire section off into a separate article? The rest of the article is a pretty solid A&P article, but this whole section seems to be out of place--more so than the history section which is terse and somewhat sparsely referenced in places. Jclemens (talk) 04:30, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

•  Comment. as an anatomy editor I think it's very important to keep historical and social and cultural information on articles. There is a tendency to view organs from a medical perspective (perhaps because of the editing cohort) but it's important to remember organs existed far longer that we've known about them, and their importance doesn't just end at the exit door of a doctor's surgery. Social, cultural and historical information is fascinating and very informative and as these sections are not too long, I think they should stay on the main page. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:13, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
  • OK, I'll defer to you on this one. The material's all appropriate somewhere, the question is only, at most, where it should go. Jclemens (talk) 21:35, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Other Animals

Done Resolved

Could the main section be written without an assumption that the reader is conversant with taxonomies?  Partly done unfortunately not really. I have tried to simplify some terms. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:55, 14 August 2016 (UTC) Double Circulatory System The double circulatory system isn't really explained in this section, and there doesn't appear to be a main article where I could go and read more about this.  done? I have tried to explain this better. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:55, 14 August 2016 (UTC) The fully divided heart this section actually seems to be quite well written, compared to the previous section. Fish No real comments here, but again, this is not a part of the article where I am terribly familiar with the subtopic. Invertebrates unreferenced, without a main article referenced either.  Done referenced. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:55, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

OK, so that's the end of the first pass. Jclemens (talk) 05:03, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

• Thank goodness. I'll slowly make my way through this! --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:24, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Currently still  Doing.... I'll leave a note here when I've responded to your review in full... --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:14, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
    • @Jclemens ready for the next set of replies. Please box anything that you consider resolved so I don't lose track of what needs addressing. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:55, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
      • Noted, the ball is in my court. Unfortunately, I will not be able to significantly review this until Tuesday or Wednesday, in all likelihood. I want to give it my full attention, and I have a few other projects needing mine more urgently. Jclemens (talk) 00:04, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Dunkleosteus77

• ref 102 shows an error message
  •  Comment. See below. Can't find which reference--Tom (LT) (talk) 09:24, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
• check ref 104, it looks like a journal ref but it's missing authors, publication date, and the title
  •  Comment. See below. Can't find which reference--Tom (LT) (talk) 09:24, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
• Use this converter to convert ISBN-10 to ISBN-13 as per WP:ISBN
  •  Not done this is a "How to" page and is not required for a GA review, is very time consuming and doesn't improve the quality of the article. So I will not be doing this. --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:24, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

It'll take a couple minutes, it's just copy/paste again and again

• ref 94 is missing a title
  •  Comment. See below. Can't find which reference--Tom (LT) (talk) 09:24, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
• check ref 4, for page numbers it reads "pp. 422–." Also it's a book ref so it doesn't need an access date
  •  Done--Tom (LT) (talk) 09:24, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
• ref 16 is just a url
  •  Done--Tom (LT) (talk) 09:24, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
• ref 23 needs a publisher (The Free Dictionary By Farlex)
  •  Done--Tom (LT) (talk) 09:24, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
• the publisher for ref 39 is About.com, not Biology.about.com
  •  Done--Tom (LT) (talk) 09:24, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
• the publisher for ref 38 is MedicineNet.com, not Medterms.com
  •  Done--Tom (LT) (talk) 09:24, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
• ref 43 has a free version online at https://archive.org/details/GuytonHallTextbookOfMedicalPhysiology11thEdition
  •  Comment.--Tom (LT) (talk) 09:24, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
• the title for ref 52 is just "Different heart diseases" and the publisher is "World Heart Federation"
  •  Done --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:24, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
• the publisher for ref 64 is the American Heart Association
  •  Comment. See below. Can't find which reference--Tom (LT) (talk) 09:24, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
• make sure to use template cite (and if you don't, the page number comes before the ISBN)
  •  Comment. See below. --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:24, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
• for ref 107, instead of saying "page unknown", use template {{page needed}}
  •  Comment. See below. --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:24, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

it's now ref 115

In response to this, I want to point out that verifiability, not an impeccable list of references, is what is required for GA status (WP:GA?). That said thanks for your attention and I've tried to adress as many of these as I can. Unfortunately because I've edited I've lost track of the reference numbers, so if you can let me know the reference names/authors I'll fix the ones I've lost track of.--Tom (LT) (talk) 09:24, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

• The good news about multiple people nitpicking things in good faith during a GA review is that by fixing all of that up you are just that much closer to FAC once all is said and done...  :-) Jclemens (talk) 00:05, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

• ref 125, ref 126, and ref 133 are missing a title, authors, year of publication, and publishers
  •  Done --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:35, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
• ref 110 and ref 132 shows a cite error
• the title for ref 102 would be "Look up All Chinese Words in a Text?"
  •  Not done this page is the dictionary entry for the Chinese word for heart. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:35, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
• ref 116 should look like Rombauer, Irma S.; Becker, Marion Rombauer; Becker, Ethan (1975). The Joy of Cooking. The Bobbs-Merrill Company. p. 508. ISBN 978-0-0260-4570-4.
  •  Done--Tom (LT) (talk) 00:35, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
• what is ref 112 supposed to be?
  • Magazine article, looks to be. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:35, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
• the ISBN for ref 100 (Death and the Afterlife in Ancient Egypt) is 978-0-2267-9164-7
•  Done --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:35, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
• the ISBN for ref 99 (Middle Egyptian: An Introduction to the Language and Culture of Hieroglyphs) is 978-1-1076-6328-2
  •  Done --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:35, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
• any reason why the title for ref 120 is in all caps?
  •  Done good point - have decapitalised. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:35, 20 August 2016 (UTC)--Tom (LT) (talk) 00:35, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Second full read-through

• In Valves, we've got two adjacent sentences (1st and 2nd paragraphs) which begin "The valves between the atria and ventricles"
  •  Done thanks, clarified --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:01, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
• Coronary circulation "Blood circulates through the coronary circulation cyclically" How about "through the coronary vessels" to avoid circulation/ates twice in one sentence?
  •  Done --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:01, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
• "It does this by smaller branching arteries - diagonal and septal branches." How about "It does this by branching into smaller arteries" or something like that?
  •  Done --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:01, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
• Nerve supply "The heart receives nerves from the sympathetic trunk and the vagus nerve." The heart is innervated by? Receives nerve signals from? I'm sure there's an equally correct and less awkward way to say it than "receives nerves"
  •  Done the heart does receive physical nerves from the sympathetic trunk, I've change the wording to reflect this --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:01, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
• Disease I'm still struggling with this sentence: "Many other medical professionals are involved in treating diseases of the heart, including doctors such as general practitioners, cardiothoracic surgeons and intensivists, and allied health practitioners including physiotherapists and dieticians." From my perspective as a practicing PA (that is, as a medical practitioner, NOT allied health), dieticians and physiotherapists do very little compared to what I do actively managing hypertension, anticoagulation, and the like. How about something like: "Cardiologists manage heart problems, with interventionalists managing the electrical and coronary circulation problems with solutions such as pacemakers and percutaneous coronary interventions (stents). Cardiothoracic surgeons repair structural defects with open heart surgery, coronary artery bypass surgery, and similar interventions. Multiple other medical and allied health professions help in the prevention and treatment of heart disease."
  •  Not done lol, it is tempting to see one as the crux of treatment (which you probably are) but there is a whole ecosystem of allied health that works within hospitals, rehabilitation and in outpatient settings to help manage heart failure. Allied health play an important role in the management of heart disease, so I won't be changing this sentence.--Tom (LT) (talk) 01:01, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
• "Heart failure is where the heart can't beat enough blood" deliver enough blood, perhaps?
  •  Done clarified. Heart failure is clarified by beating out blood (systolic and diastolic) not just delivering blood to the body. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:01, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
• "or cause the heart to dilate and impact on the effiency of its beating" I think the 'on' is extra there.
  •  Done fixed the spelling mistake, removed on. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:01, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
• "Murmurs are graded by volume, from 1) the quietest, to 6) the loudest." I'm thinking "1 (the quietest) to 6 (the loudest)" is probably a better way to format that.
  •  Done --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:01, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
• "the frequency of the sound as determined by the side of the stethoscope by which they are heard" This assumes that all stethoscopes have a bell/diaphragm configuration, which is not universally true.
  •  Not done "if present" I think is implied here, this is part of a list of ways that murmurs can be characterised by. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:01, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
• In Treatment the link to implantable defibrillator should probably be Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator rather than the general defibrillator article.
  •  Done --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:01, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
• Since we seem to have different acronyms across the pond, how about we just spell out "nitroglycerin[e]"?
  •  Done good point --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:01, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
• Since this is a scientific article without particular religious impacts, should we not be using BCE/CE rather than BC/AD?
  •  Not done standard even in nonreligious texts in my geography, and used mostly in the history section, no convincing reason to change. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:01, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
• "The breakthrough came with the publication of De Motu Cordis..." Which breakthrough? Into widespread modern understanding of cardiac function?
  •  Done fixed --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:01, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
• "In Catholicism, there has been a long tradition of worship of the heart," I suspect 'veneration' may be more appropriate than worship in that context.
  •  Done good point --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:01, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
• The first two paragraphs of double circulatory systems appear somewhat redundant.
  •  Not done one is relating to double circulatory systems in general, one paragraph relates to reptiles.--Tom (LT) (talk) 01:01, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
• Excellent work cleaning up the fish heart section, BTW.
  •  Done thanks --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:01, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
• ... and that's all for this pass. I'll hat some stuff and adjust things now. Jclemens (talk) 21:29, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Done many thanks. I think I've addressed all your concerns. Hopefully the article is very close or at GA standard. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:01, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Addit: except the lead. I will get around to this within a few days.--Tom (LT) (talk) 01:11, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

The impact of exercise on the heart rate

Does not belong in the lead. Such a statement is tangential at best (exercise -> heart rate -> heart) and there are simply too many other things to cover in the lead. If we cover this fact, we might as well cover many other important contributing factors to the heart rate. I do not believe that will lead to an easy to read lead, or help with length. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:06, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Earthworms != insect

Under the part of the article regarding invertebrates, it says "In other insects such as earthworms". Earthworms aren't a kind of insect, or even an arthropod. They're an annelid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.248.68.180 (talk) 23:07, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

systol and diastole

Actually I want to know if the systol and diastole happens at the same mean of time or not? Nusrat Jahan Umaiya (talk) 18:18, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I have reworded the cardiac cycle section to hopefully make this more clear.PeaBrainC (talk) 07:13, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

heart in hinduism is not third eye which is pineal gland located in murdhni forehead

heart is not third eye as written in heart article as third eye is unanimously considered by all scholars to be in centre of forehead since times immemorial. lord shiva is often depicted with third eye open which is called agya chakra, always said to be centre of forehead called murdhni in sanskrit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ombaba123456 (talk • contribs) 20:23, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Resting heart rate 60-100 or 50-90

In the Heart rate article the normal adult resting heart rate has been changed a few months back from 60-100 to 50-90, this article still has 60-100. The heart rate article seems to have a lot of sources for 50-90, so I think this page should be updated. Threore (talk) 06:25, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done Threore Thank you for pointing this discrepancy out. That statement was not backed by reliable sources - please see my response on the talk page of Heart rate. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:50, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Reptiles

Birds are diapsids and therefore reptiles. The article treats them as entirely separate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.177.178.63 (talk) 05:48, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Whilst you are technically correct we have discussed animals by the morphology of their hearts here, which makes sense as the article is about the Heart. I encourage you also to create an account and contribute to more articles :). --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:53, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Hearts normally being fist size is post factual

Just about to present a recent paper regarding heart / fist size comparison drawn from post mortem scans, we know now that the normal ratio of size between hearts and fists in people without cardiac disease is roughly 2:1. More precisely it is 1,8 +/- 0,4. In other words, adhering to promoting a "normal heart of size of body's fist" claim is post-factual. Reference: L. Ebert, E. Krinke, W. Schweitzer, P. Laberke, M. Thali, G. Ampanozi (2017) Comparing fist size to heart size is not a viable technique to assess cardiomegaly. Rechtsmedizin 4: 322. You are happy to cite this when correcting the Wikipedia page. Regards, Wolf Schweitzer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swisswuff (talk • contribs) 15:49, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

 Partly done Well, you learn something every day, so thank you for posting this, Swisswuff. The statement within the article is sourced from a tertiary source, which we consider to be slightly more reliable than a primary source (WP:MEDRS), so we will need to wait for a more reliable source before including this information only (I will include it in brief because it is quite notable). The findings of the journal article also aligns with my personal experiences during surgery. That said, it is my feeling that the article (which I helped write) is using this commonly used analogy to communicate information to lay readers, rather than proposing it as a tool for use by anatomical or forensic pathologists. Respectfully, --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:58, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 November 2018

Change Muscular organ to muscle Bigpeepeegmaer69 (talk) 04:35, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: request made by indefinitely blocked user. Feel free to set this to unanswered if anyone else supports this edit request. DannyS712 (talk) 05:42, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2019

change "Preload refers to the filling pressure of the atria at the end of diastole, when they are at their fullest." to " Preload refers to the filling pressure of the atria at the end of diastole, when the ventricles are at their fullest." because: At the end of diastole the atria filled the ventricles. The atria (where 'they' is referring to) are thus at their emptiest and ventricles at their fullest. Van de Vorst (talk) 12:09, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 08:30, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Purpose of Appendage?

Wikipedia now says:

"There is an ear-shaped structure in the upper right atrium called the right atrial appendage, or auricle, and another in the upper left atrium, the left atrial appendage".

--ee1518 (talk) 15:52, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

heart

is somthing full of blood and love — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.53.16.158 (talk) 14:07, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2020

The American Heart Association recommends that trans fat intake does not exceed 1% of daily caloric intake. Trans fat clogs arteries, cause high cholesterol, and is the unhealthiest fat. The primary dietary source for trans fats in processed food is partially hydrogenated oil. Asimumar (talk) 09:22, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Jack Frost (talk) 10:01, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2021

Change the word "furtherst" (in the sentence "The arteries divide at their furtherst reaches into smaller branches that join together at the edges of each arterial distribution." in the section "Coronary circulation") to "furthest". 2A00:23C6:9480:E600:366C:89A5:4226:67A0 (talk) 18:38, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:51, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

meaning of heart

in Arabic it is pronounced as "ghalb" . slightly different pronuncition of ghalb is glava глава in russian language and it means the Head. This is not a quote.194.86.153.167 (talk) 07:26, 18 June 2021 (UTC) Amir Arab194.86.153.167 (talk) 07:26, 18 June 2021 (UTC) .

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2021

Please change this image caption:

Photograph of a human heart

to

Human heart during an autopsy

Obviously it's a photograph, and the context (derived from the image's description page) is useful. 64.203.186.84 (talk) 13:19, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done, and thank you very much! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 18:05, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protection

If i aim at the lock, it says "This article is semi-protected to promote compliance with the policy on biographies of living persons." The question - how an organ related to people and their biographies? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monleres485 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Doren. Talk about

Vajajajaoahamapaa 2409:4042:E95:F0AB:7CD6:33EC:4A0E:D1F1 (talk) 04:09, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

"Urtakerte" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Urtakerte. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 26#Urtakerte until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Certes (talk) 16:59, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hartmacl.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:14, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 January 2019 and 17 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sherline1995.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 February 2019 and 17 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): AR12Fan.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2021 and 25 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lexiwalton.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Garbled explanation under "other animals/double circulatory systems"

The section contains the following sentences: "In particular, the snake's heart relative to the position in their body has been influenced greatly by gravity. Therefore, snakes that are larger in size tend to have a higher blood pressure due to gravitational change. This results in the heart being located in different regions of the body that is relative to the snake's body length.[124]"

Aside from the bad writing and imprecision, this cannot possibly be correct. The force of gravity is not significantly different in different parts of even a big snake's body, even if it is vertically oriented.

Willing to do a sucky sucky for $694.20

I would make an edit, except that I don't know anything about snakes and haven't read the literature. I hope someone knowledgeable will fix the obviously wrong text.

Polysinger (talk) 23:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)