Talk:Norwood procedure

Lead Section: This section is very long and difficult to follow. It mixes both historical and technical aspects of the procedure. It uses technical terms and fails to lead convey a general understanding of the purpose of the procedure. The lead section could also benefit from a few more credible sources; the first citation does not appear until half-way into the paragraph. Content: Content is good, but again could benefit from reorganization and elimination of medical jargon. I would like to add to the “Process” section given that it fails to paint a clear picture of what is going on during the procedure. Additionally, this section is in dire need of credible sources.

Tone and Balance: The article does not appear to have a biased opinion or unbalanced tone.

Sources and Citations: In total there are only 8 citations for this article and most of the are older. The article would benefit from a healthy mix of articles that support the description of the procedure and any newer research (conducted within the last 5 years) which highlights risk factors affecting the success and prognosis of the Norwood procedure. Although each paragraph has a citation, the article would reach more credibility with multiple sources all in support of the facts. A few of the sources are newer and could be left in the article.

Organization and Writing Quality: Organization is poor and needs improvement. Language could also be improved and simplified. There is a lot of medical jargon which makes it a bothersome read; it adds to the already difficult to understand topic

Images and Media: There are two images, and both are great. They perfectly demonstrate how HLHS presents at birth and how it is corrected during the Norwood procedure.

Talk Page: There are no conversations on the talk page. The article is of high importance on the project’s importance scale. It is also a Start-Class on the quality scale and marked as Mid-importance. Lastly, the article is part of the WikiProject Medicine and requires use of high-quality medical sources.

Overall: This is a good start to the article. There will be a lot of restructuring, starting with the leading paragraph, and followed by the table of contents which will include “Indications”, “Procedure” with subdivisions into multiple steps and “Aftermath and Prognosis”. The good part of this article is that it already has great information that must be reorganized and polished. Medical jargon will be substituted with easy-to-understand terms; missing citations will be added. When these points are addressed, I hope to add more sections if there is more missing information. Links to other wikiepdia pages will be added as well.

Lead:

I thought that your lead was a helpful introduction to the article. The only changes I might consider would be moving the first couple lines to their own "History" section, as this is not discussed in the main body of the article. It might also be helpful to pare down some of the description of the steps involved, as you do a great job of going into detail on these later in the article. I thought your infobox was helpful and the image helped to clarify some of what you discuss in the rest of the article.

Content:

I thought your content was great! This is a subject I don't know very much about, and it was interesting to learn more. I think you could expand a little on the history if you wanted to add a new section for that. I think that you do a good job of following up medical jargon with a description of what the term means. There are probably a few more cases of complicated terms that you could simplify, but I was really impressed by how you managed a really complicated topic!

Tone and balance:

I think the tone is neutral. You didn't present biased opinions on the use or success of the procedure, just a description of what the procedure is and when it is used.

Sources and references:

You used a significant number of different citations from the article. Some of them are fairly old, but some as recent as 2021, so I think that your article represents the evolution of the information available on this topic. There are a couple lines where someone else indicated that a citation is needed, I'm not sure if those are lines that you added or if they were already there.

Organization:

I think your approach to describing the two phases of the procedure was really helpful. The text is pretty dense as it is a complicated topic, so you could consider breaking the steps into a list if you were looking to spread things out a little more. I think it would be helpful to add a short history section to talk about Dr. Norwood. You could also consider making the long term outcomes a section of its own instead of keeping it under the process heading.

Images and media:

I thought your images were great! The really add to the understanding of the topic.

Overall impressions:

I think you did a great job on this article! It seems like a fairly complicated topic, but you were able to discuss the process of the Norwood procedure without going into too much unnecessary detail or overwhelming the reader. I can tell that the organization is better than it was before you started your editing process, and the information was easier to understand because of it.