Talk:Hypertension/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Initial impressions

This is a very important topic, of interest to many of our readers in many countries. As such it it is disappointing to find an article which relies almost entirely on U.S. guidelines, and which does not meet the relevant guidelines of the Manual of Style and its subsection WP:MEDMOS.

• While mmHg are widely used to measure systolic and diastolic pressure, pascals are also used in the non English speaking world. Millimeters of mercury should obviously be the "main" unit for this article (because of their ubiquitous use in the English-speaking world for the quantities described), but conversions to SI should be given in parentheses for important measures (normal pressures, the threshold of hypertension, etc).  Done
• "Systolic" and "diastolic" should be glossed at their first usage: these are exactly the sort of terms which a patient is likely to hear and for which he or she would want a quick and easy explanation.  Done
• While hypertension is self-evidently defined as elevated blood pressure, there is no attempt to define "normal" blood pressure. This is obviously a difficult task, as definitions vary between authorities, but it is hardly one that can be shirked in an article such as this. Is it 120/80, or 115/75, or 112/64, or some other figure or range?  Done
• There are far too many subsections under the headers "Essential (primary) hypertension" and "Secondary hypertension" (especially for the latter, which accounts for only 5% of cases). These short paragraphs should be joined together into a coherent discussion without the need for {{main}} tags.  Done
• Phrases such as "People with hypertension or history of cardio-vascular disease should avoid liquorice raising their blood pressure to risky levels." MUST be refactored to avoid the impression of giving clinical guidance. There are many more than the single one I mention here.
• The details in the "Measuring blood pressure" section would perhaps be better at the article on blood pressure: in any case, they should not read like a "how-to" guide. Similarly, the "Investigations commonly performed in newly diagnosed hypertension" sections needs to be comprehensively refactored, if not simply deleted as superfluous to improved sections on the possible "causes" of hypertension (which would imply the tests required to exclude or confirm them).  Done MaenK.A._Talk
• The "epidemiology" and "history" sections are not really up to what one would expect, although I would not refuse GA status simply for that reason.  Done MaenK.A._Talk

• Epidemiology section  Done MaenK.A._Talk
• History section  Done MaenK.A._Talk

• I worked on the first 4 points, and on doing point 4 the resulted paragraphs are too long, so if you don't mind I ll break them into 2 new articles, Essential hypertension, and Secondary hypertension, thank you Maen. K. A. (talk) 21:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
• about the history of the disease, I only found one document, shall I add all the info from this document?? is the document Maen. K. A. (talk) 21:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

That's looking better now. Splitting out daughter articles is no problem at all, as long as there is enough essential info here. See WP:SUMMARY for more details. If there's no reliable material on the history, then we can't include it, obviously! On the other hand, the one-sentence section we have at the moment would need to placed elsewhere in the text (from the MoS). I'm pasting in the formal checklist: most of it seems covered, but there might be some last points to clear up. I'll try not to let the review drop off my 2DO list this time round ;) Physchim62 (talk) 12:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• thank you for putting this on your to do list, I split the articles and I reduced the essential hypertension section, I will continue working on the 3 articles, and I will reduce the secondary causes as well since it has its own article after improving that article, what do you think?? MaenK.A._Talk 12:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• I think we're getting there, towards an article which is appropriate as a "first hit" for people interested in the condition. There's still some copyediting to do – I've done a bit, but I didn't want to worry about the later sections until you had finished the demerge. Some bits are simple (lack of spaces after a full stop), while some is more complicated (do we have to have so many lists, or can at least some of the information be expressed in prose). Note that the article contradicts itself in the "choice of initial medication" section on the subject of thiazides: again I could fix this myself, but I'd rather it were another editor who looked at it (not least because I've got a busy afternoon!). Physchim62 (talk) 12:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• don't worry about that, I will be working on the article section by section, and when I reach there I will work on that :-) MaenK.A._Talk 21:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• Just wanna ask, should I expand the pathophysiology section like I did here, or split it and link both articles to it, or leave it as is, even though by looking here you see this is too short ?? what do you think ?? MaenK.A._Talk 22:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• My advice is to come back to "pathophysiology" in a couple of days, to get a clearer look at it, rather than editing "on the hot"! I agree that the section as it stands at the moment is rather short and – worse – it is unreferenced! Most of it is fairly uncontroversial, so I might be able to help in the morning (European time). Physchim62 (talk) 23:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
• Thank you, I am a bit confused about the secondary causes, what do you think, i am thinking of expanding the original article and the reduce the section here, but the other article looks weird as if it is a list, with codes beside the headers, an so on, I don't know what to do, what do you think, I can rewrite the whole article in a better way to suit the reduction I ll do at the at the Secondary hypertension section in the hypertension article, soo?? tell me your opinion, thank you again MaenK.A._Talk 10:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

comments: What about pre eclampsia / eclampsia, hypertensive encephalopathy, and hypertensive emergencies? They are touched on under causes but are not discussed further. How about signs and symptoms of hypertension? You can get CP for example as well as confusion.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your time, I ll be working on these :-) MaenK.A._Talk

• signs and symptoms of hypertension  Done MaenK.A._Talk 11:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• About the History section, what do you suggest, its very small, and its pretty hard to expand, please if you find any sources share them with me, and I ll work on adding the info to the article MaenK.A._Talk 11:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Shall I right more details about complication in the prognosis section??
• about the secondary causes, what do you think, i am thinking of expanding the original article and the reduce the section here, but the other article looks weird as if it is a list, with codes beside the headers, an so on, I don't know what to do, what do you think, I can rewrite the whole article in a better way to suit the reduction I ll do at the at the Secondary hypertension section in the hypertension article, soo?? tell me your opinion MaenK.A._Talk 15:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Secondary hypertension is hypertension due to another cause. This is a separate issue from a hypertensive emergency (which can occur due to both primary or secondary hypertension). This is severe hypertension and symptoms with specific symptoms.

Hypertensive emergencies needs it own article but it should be summarized in this one probably in a couple places ( like classification, symptoms section, and treatment section ) with a link to the main article.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• I understand this, and I will work on that dont worry, I was just asking about the secondary hypertension section, should we do something about it?? or is it good as is?? :-) MaenK.A._Talk 16:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• I have subdivided the sections. Few other areas that could use a bit more subheading to make finding information easier.

• Even in the essential hypertension section it would be good to subdivide out the major causes to both emphasis and discuss in more detail. The fact that 85% of hypertension occurs in people with a BMI>25 is an excellent point.

• How about some of the economic effects? This can go in a section about society and culture. Done MaenK.A._Talk

--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

More comments:

1. see also section should be combined into the text  Done MaenK.A._Talk

1. formatting refs on one line rather than many lines makes the article easier to edit for future editor. look at edit screen to see the difference  Done

<name="anbp2">Wing LM, Reid CM, Ryan P; et al. (2003). "A comparison of outcomes with angiotensin-converting—enzymeinhibitors and diuretics for hypertension in the elderly". NEJM. 348 (7): 583–92. PMID 12584366. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)</ref>

<name="anbp2">Wing LM, Reid CM, Ryan P; et al. (2003). "A comparison of outcomes with angiotensin-converting—enzyme inhibitors and diuretics for hypertension in the elderly". NEJM. 348 (7): 583–92. PMID 12584366. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)</ref> --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• About subdividing the sections, the previous reviewer asked to remove all those subsection and to create contentious paragraph out of that, here is the article before the removal, and about the secondary causes that you subdivided, I am thinking of reducing the section and expanding the original article to suit that, please tell me what do you think about this in particular, and please give the article a look, as it looks like a list while it should be an article.
• The economic effects, I guess a great Idea, and Its important to address that in the article, please give me some suggestions for the section name that will discuss this point, and where to add it.
• I ll be working on the ref formatting and on the see also points until we decide about these :-) thank you for your time and great suggestions MaenK.A._Talk 22:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree before there were to many. I think four or 5 subsections at most. Then have a category of others for one line points such as licorice etc. I think as this article get bigger sections will have to be broken off and just a summary left in the main article. See the Obesity page as an example. Will be gone for a bit soon but will try to look over things. This is a very important topic. We will need to find the right balance between the discussion of lifestyle interventions and pharmacology.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

This book has a number of pages on the history of the condition. Found at google scholar added a bit from it. [[1]]

--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)  Done MaenK.A._Talk

• Images are not formated to default. This slow down a large page. See [[2]] --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)  Done MaenK.A._Talk 07:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
• Issues with references: some section have too many ( you only need one for a none contencious point ) some sections have none.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)  Done MaenK.A._Talk
• how much do these complications increase due to hypertension [[3]]--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Should I expand the prognosis and complications section ?? MaenK.A._Talk 16:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)  Done MaenK.A._Talk

The section on classification should comment on the definations of hypertensive urgency, and hypertensive emergency. These are seperate classifications to the ones given.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

GA criteria

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   mostly OK, but I wouldn't like to judge until after the issues of scope have been resolved. there are several lists which might be better as prose.

   B. MoS compliance:

   copyediting needed at the moment

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   pretty much OK, but it will be easier to see after the current round of edits: I don't foresee any major problems with this point

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   see above

   B. Focused:

   see above

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   one or two last points to iron out, for example thiazides in the "Choice of initial medication" section, but basically NPOV

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   no non-free images at present.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   any additional appropriate images would be welcome, but I accept that it's difficult

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

This has been on hold for a couple months - has everything nearly been completed yet? Wizardman 16:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, it looks like Phys' concerns are all addressed, and that he's not going to check up on this, so I'm going to pass this as a GA. Wizardman 17:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)