• Structure section: first sentence needs to specify human heart.
  •  Done --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:06, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• "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)[reply]
• "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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• "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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• "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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• "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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

•  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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  •  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)[reply]
    • This is fine, I have no further proposals for this section. Jclemens (talk) 19:26, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• "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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• "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)[reply]
• "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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• "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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• "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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
  •  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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• Auscultation, on the other hand, is explained twice.
  •  Done --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:08, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• "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)[reply]
• "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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• "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)[reply]
• "...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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

•  Doing... --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:08, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done happy to discuss some of the points above, looking forward to responses. --Tom (LT) (talk) 02:03, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Ancient entire section is unsourced.
  •  Done --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:09, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• See my comments below on this :). --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:09, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done --Tom (LT) (talk) 02:05, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]