Wikipedia:Peer review/Nanostim Leadless Pacemaker/archive1

Nanostim Leadless Pacemaker

This peer review discussion has been closed.

Thanks, Laurakoehler (talk) 19:44, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments from EricEnfermero

I'm fairly new at PR but I am happy to leave a few comments.

• Should the article be moved at some point to Nanostim leadless pacemaker? It seems this is reflected in the company's literature.
• Per WP:LEAD, that section should summarize the body of the article. It shouldn't introduce significant facts omitted from the body.
• Are there independent sources that could replace some of the uses of the company's product information?
• I think that the article could benefit from some background on pacing before detailing the advantages of the Nanostim.
• The Advantages section doesn't list that many advantages. Maybe it's just a matter of titling the section differently.
• Check the article for redundant language such as "there still remains a considerable..." - WP:GOCE may be able to help.
• I would also try to avoid subjective language like "remarkable" and "unique", except maybe in direct quotes.
• "subjected to harsh environments and mechanical stress..." - not 100% clear on the harsh environments.
• There is extraneous punctuation in the Advantages section. Again, a GOCE copyedit may help.
• I would expect a History section to take a more chronological approach. I would start with the 1950s.
• "feasibility of these pacing systems has shown to be successful" - feasibility and success are different concepts.
• Because you talk about phases later, I would use a different term for the 1970 research.
• By "initial technical difficulties with intracardiac pacing", do we just mean the need for leads? That sentence needs a reference.
• How big is a traditional pacemaker? I'm assuming you mean the dimensions here.
• "catheter-based delivery system originating from the femoral vein" - imprecise; originates in a factory, not from a vein. May help to make those two separate sentences.
• Avoid the use of "currently" per WP:WTW; might use "as of" instead.
• Two references to Phase II trials. Should the second one be Phase I?
• I would like a little more specific information on risks of pacemakers and this device.
• There is no mention that Nanostim was its own company until it was purchased by SJM.

Good luck with this entry. It's a pretty fascinating topic! EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 09:50, 28 March 2014 (UTC)