lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Norwood procedure

message: 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.
Katiehayman (talk) 15:51, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review
Talk:Packed red blood cells

message: User:HendrikHansen this is dealt with in the body of the article. 
"Most blood banks utilize automated centrifugation systems to wash or volume reduce the blood products they produce and distribute. The other options is using patients’ own blood. This is known as autologous blood transfusion. The patients red blood cells are collected and can be washed by different methods. The two main methods that are used to wash the cells are centrifugation, or filtration methods. For this procedure microfiltration devices like the HemoClear filter can be used."
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:58, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Text
Talk:The Punk Rocket

message: It appears that the content of this article is covered by List of minor characters in the Teen Titans animated series#Punk Rocket.  I therefore propose that this article be merged with the subsection of the list. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge
Talk:Paradoxical reaction

message: Is this simply to become a listing of paradoxical reactions?   If so, then nearly every drug could be listed since there is most likely some patient that has a paradoxical reaction to it.   Or certain drugs which under non-ideal situations could act paradoxically (like anti-arrhythmic drugs which could paradoxically cause MIs).   This article is important, however it may need to be rethought and reorganized.  --98.70.56.46 (talk) 00:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article needs work. 

message: I'd like to see information about the role of genetics in paradoxical reactions included in this article.   — C M B J   03:01, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genetics
Talk:Johannes Steele

message: His 1934 article 'Fascism in the West' follows the Stalin line on Fascism as being the 'last gasp of capitalism' pretty closely. (reprinted in 'They Were There' (1944) -ed. Curt Riess. Available free online at Google Books). One thing that might help would be to examine his activities during the Nazi-Soviet pact and see if he drops the opposition to Fascism as Stalin wished Communists to do.
Also, what were his activities after the war? Judy Holliday's explanation as to how she came to be involved with a supposed Communist front organization protesting the 1948 firing of William Shirer, Robert St. John, Johannes Steele and Raymond Walsh is the only thing in the article about the post-war period.
This article needs to be expanded.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.29.152.6 (talk) 22:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was he a Communist? 
Talk:Ruby Lane

message: The original article indicating Ruby Lane doesn’t charge a fee on sales, is incorrect.  For at least the last 2 years (2020), Ruby Lane charges sellers a fee of slightly under 10% Victoriental (talk) 03:15, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fees
Talk:Camp Disappointment

message: The following coordinate fixes are needed for Camp Disappointment.  The given coordinates are for the monument erected by the Great Northern Railway, not the actual campsite itself.  According to the marker, the camp site is four miles north of the marker.
—69.169.188.53 (talk) 04:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: So what are the correct coordinates?PumpkinSky talk 09:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

text: . Deor (talk) 13:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coordinate error
Talk:Percutaneous umbilical cord blood sampling

message: I will be working on this page in an attempt to expand the information on this subject for a class assignment. Ecapelle (talk) 03:12, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Assignment

message: *The lead section could use additional citations.
** Cited. Ecapelle (talk) 18:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments from Mjurgens369 

message: * intro is good, nice and concise, I don't think there is a need to add too much more information
**Alright. Ecapelle (talk) 23:45, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments from Nvarade 

message: *first reference in lead should be placed at end of sentence
**Done. Ecapelle (talk) 00:59, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments from [[User: Jfriend2]] 

message: *Under the history section, "...Adamsons reported the removal of a uterus in a fetus who had a buildup of fluid and ended up dying..." sounds like they removed the fetus' uterus.  Maybe rephrase this sentence so it is a little clearer.
**Rephrased. Thanks for the suggestion! Ecapelle (talk) 01:16, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments from [[User: Rglastet]] 

message: * Can you figure out how to move the male karyotype figure from the middle of the paragraph so it is not split awkwardly?
**Moved. Ecapelle (talk)
* Now that you have added so much to the risks paragraph, I think it should be a separated from the procedures section again.
**Done. Akhan50699 (talk) 21:49, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments from [[User:Biolprof|Biolprof]]  

message: I noticed that a 1994 source is being used in the contraindications paragraph to summarize clinical guidelines. That doesn't meet WP:MEDDATE, which asks for recent sources, such as those within the last several years, if possible. Might there be much more recent medical literature available?  and  could be used within the article to mark these issues if they aren't addressed. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. ) while signing a reply, thx 22:29, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment from Biosthmors 

message: *While the procedure of PUBS is well explained, I think that some figures could be beneficial to help make this easier to understand. If not a picture or diagram of the entire procedure, at least an image of some of the different aspects of the procedure (tools, parts of the body involved, etc.). Estephe9 (talk) 18:06, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment from Estephe9

message: *Associated Risks section should be Associated risks.
**Fixed. Ecapelle (talk) 16:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments from iamwillthinnes
Talk:Perioperative

message: "(PSC1&2) The Post Surgical Care Unit is located on the 2nd floor at CMC-Northeast and it is for patients after surgery, it is the floor below the surgery center."
This information relates to ONE Post Surgical Care Unit in ONE city in ONE State In ONE country.
I am used to wikipedia U.S.A. contributors being US centric, but this one is over the top.
Before you delete comments. THINK!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.28.24.31 (talk) 17:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Talk:Leo Aiolia

message: The transliteration of the kanji is wrong. It should be "shishiza no aioria". Why has it been transcripted into "reo no aiorioa"? I didn't change it just in case the kanji has a special reading, though it seems extremely unlikely to me.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baka toroi (talk • contribs) 09:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong romaji
Talk:No Warning (band)

message: Per .  One of the band states that most of what was written is nonsense, and has tried several times to stub the article for rework but has been reverted. Guy (Help!) 19:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stubbed 

message: Most of what was written was from an official biography of the band and the information I gathered from the booklets in the CDs I own. If that was nonsense, they released it themselves in the first place. Yes, other users added nonsense to my initial article, but I (and others) have tried to keep it clean. How can you be so sure it was a band member, and why did that person not say so immediately (and instead started deleting stuff consistently)? I'm just going to revert it back again till I get an answer to this. I think it's just nonsense. —Nay
* See above.  When the subject says it's wrong, that usually means the sources are wrong or misinterpreted. Guy (Help!) 23:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hmm, no?
Talk:Regular ring

message: This is not a disambiguation page, since the (first) notion of "regular ring" does not have its own page!--129.70.14.128 21:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

message: Serre's definition of a regular ring is not equivalent to the other one. For instance, Nagata's example of a Noetherian ring with infinite Krull dimension satisfies the first definition of a regular ring, but fails Serre's defintion. The two definitions are only equivalent for rings of finite dimension. Accordingly, the statement that Serre proved the definitions are equivalent needs a source. Zdorovo (talk) 21:21, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed this. Added few more references. Kammerer55 (talk) 04:26, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  The two definitions are not equivalent
Talk:Software asset management

message: Whoa a major deletion on a page that has been around for a long time, no reason given other than 'unweildy lists.'  The content is helpful, before deleting let's have a discussion.  There is good discussion on the IT Asset Management page which supports the Software Asset Management entry and the content that has been there for a long time.  Thanks. Emeraldgreenmetallic 21:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only thing that was deleted were the redundant line breaks. Everything else had been hidden. The reason was given in the comment you deleted. The lists need to be incorporated into paragraphs. See WP:EMBED for more info. --Kmsiever 21:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I have added a new SAM entry in the temporary file that properly references each point and does not use the text in dispute for copyright infringement.DMD2007 (talk) 12:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

message: Is there anyone (organization?) working on accepting software/systems as a balance sheet asset?
FASB 86 decrees:
: (1) up to proof of concept, spending is expensed.
: (2) building is capitalized & then depreciated over 3 to 5 years.
: (3) extending/maintaining a system is expensed.
Such treatment totally ignores the reality that systems often are in service over multiple decades.  DEddy (talk) 03:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Software as Balance Sheet Asset?
Talk:Cycle count

message: Cycle count....
does anyone know how to start on a cycle counting ...? 
how to analyse them..... everything you know about this subject please let me know..!!!
Cycle counts are easily managed if set-up electronic on your systems. Cycle counts are only as effective as the prepartion time it takes to set-up a cycle count in your store/warehouse. if you have a ERP systems then your comparison is from your bookstock number to your actual counted number takinhg into adjustments to your count number as identified in your cycle count process. The common measure is iventory lost at cost as a % of your sales between your cycle counts. most common stockloss trends point to administrative defieciencies in your processes, theft, ect. This is a lot harder to manage and control because improvements can only be seen from one cycle count to the next.
If your are from South africa, I can be contacted at cfisher@edcon.co.za  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.23.137.211 (talk) 15:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  July 2008 

message: These references may help in improving citation of this article. I do not have time to go through them at the moment, but putting them here in case others do. Otherwise I will try to come back and work on it myself one day.
* 
* 
* 
Desertborn (talk) 15:04, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential Sources
Talk:St. Raphael Academy

message: This article needs to be less promotional, and have a more neutral point of view. --Bejnar (talk) 18:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Promotional
Talk:Naty Abascal

message: A head shot is more appropriate than a face behind sunglasses. Christopherpeterson 21:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Biographical Image

message: Somewhere along the line she must have had plastic surgery because her appearance in "Bananas" (1971) is quite different than in her later photos. My personal opinion(who cares) is that she was cuter before the surgery. Longinus876 (talk) 04:17, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plastic Surgery
Talk:Al-Husayni family

message: A little odd that there's nothing on Husseini vs. Nashashibi rivalries.  I added a see-also link to the Nashashibi article, where there's something... AnonMoos (talk) 11:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Nashashibi
Talk:Radical mastectomy

message: As gruesome to contemplate and as psychologically damaging as this operation may be, it was intended to remove all traces of cancer so as to prevent a recurrence.  If the lymph nodes were removed, and there was no cancer, then the surgeon was cautiously optimistic that he had gotten it all.  On the other hand, if they did this, and the cancer was discovered to have spread to the lymph nodes, that was not a good sign.  One of the principal objections to lumpectomy or anything less than radical mastectomy was that a woman who selected those lesser procedures was thought to be more concerned about appearance than saving herself from cancer.  I am not saying that is correct, but that is a summary of the then-prevailing medical view.John Paul Parks (talk) 18:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Effects

message: "From about 1895 to the mid-1970s about 90% of the women being treated for breast cancer in the US underwent the radical mastectomy." Can we have a reference to this statement, please?Norman21 (talk) 17:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference?

message: I think it would make sense to add more at the end of the Radical Mastectomy section on how Fischer helped the procedure go out of practice. I think this is an important change in how radical mastectomies were treated, and one sentence does not covey that properly. Furthermore, there would be more learned about the procedure by expounding upon the current summary of Fischer's work.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbadiey (talk • contribs) 09:08, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fischer's Contribution 

message: Much of the Radical mastectomy section is a close paraphrase of section 2.1 of Durrida et al.  The paper is CC-BY and is referenced by the article, but that it contains almost a direct copy of that section is not properly attributed. --Philosophus T 12:18, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Durrida et al
Talk:New York Cancer Hospital

message: The section entitled "New Beginning" reads a bit odd. I googled a few passages but didn't find any matches, so it's not plagiarized. Still, though, parts of it have a bit of an advertising vibe. tildetildetildetilde  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.72.59 (talk) 00:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "New Beginning" section should be looked over
Talk:Repronex

message: This article has no information that cannot be found in Menotropin. Please merge or omit.
Ekem (talk) 12:51, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Support, and with no objections I have performed this merge. --LT910001 (talk) 23:47, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger proposed
Talk:Albert Azaryan

message: Wasn't he the first to do The Iron Cross? Also I was very pissed that they did not show his face and acknowledge him for being awesome. It was like Armenia for less then a second then Spain for 10 minutes of some douchebag looking guys face that I don't CARE ABOUT!!!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.129.56.86 (talk) 01:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See this clip from 1938, at 3:14, doesn't this show that Azaryan was in fact not the first to do the iron cross? ChickenFalls (talk) 18:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, the article says that he was the first to do it in an international competition. That may be true. The clip seems to be outside competition. ChickenFalls (talk) 16:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments
Talk:Spica splint

message: "Cock-up" is another term for "foul-up" in British English.  It is a strange choice of word for this splint.  Maybe it has another meaning or source.--User:Brenont (talk) 19:37, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why "Cock-up"? 

message: I am looking for the general definition of spica, this is all about thumb spica; I also know of hip spica. 2600:387:F:4314:0:0:0:C (talk) 20:06, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spica vs thumb spica
Talk:Spinal manipulative therapy

message: Shouldn't this be a redirect to Spinal manipulation.  I see that it was once, but then it was changed back? -- Dēmatt (chat) 20:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

message: Any reason not to merge with with Spinal manipulation? DVMt (talk) 17:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: These appear to be about the same topic. In the absence of objections, I have completed the merge. LT90001 (talk) 14:00, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with SM
Talk:Splint (medicine)

message: I referenced the "Orthopedic Cast" page, to view the formatting, as it is similar to a splint. The article is a highly developed article. I also completely redid the "Origins" section and changed the name to "History." The section lacked reputable sources or any citations at all. "Commonly Used Splints" will be changed to "Splint Types" for a more clear organization and academic grammar. In addition to that, splints will be put into sub types for their use on different areas of the body. I suggest ridding of the "Uses" category or merging it with "Splint Types", as it doesn't talk about how splints are used but how medical personnel use them.The contents table has been modified to fit the new organization. I would also suggest adding more types of splints and organizing a table to the areas of the body the splints are used for. I left this for someone who has a better understanding on MERDS. Kaitlyn Esquer (talk) 03:25, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: :There was some merging in 2014 and there needs to be more.
*Spica splint (2006 ) is a type of splint and the article has no references.
*Buddy wrapping (2006) is a finger splint with one reference.
::These two articles are not more than definitions and can be merged to Splint (medicine). Otr500 (talk) 01:44, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Redirects are fine, but the references are sometimes left behind that support the content that was merged. See below. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉  12:04, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: According to A Dictionary of Occupational Science and Occupational Therapy, splint is an alternative term for orthosis. Merge? Skottniss (talk) 05:21, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging 

message: *
*
*
*
*
*
*https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/80165-overview
*https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/85224-treatment
:Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉  12:00, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources
Talk:Surgical tape

message: The redirect Micropore Hypoallergenic Skin Tape has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  A smart kitten (talk) 17:45, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Micropore Hypoallergenic Skin Tape]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]
Talk:T-cell vaccination

message: Would be useful context to know ? - Rod57 (talk) 17:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Have any gone into clinical trials or been approved  

message: *  
was inaccessible but sounds like it is actually about T-cell vaccines. - Rod57 (talk) 17:36, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious ref deleted
Talk:Brain stimulation reward

message: As described by Olds & Milner 1954, ICSS (intracranial self-stimulation) was in fact an extracranial self-stimulation, because the animal stimulated itself by an external device (electrode) implemented by a human investigator.
Only humans (H. sapiens) -- more exactly: philosophers (i.e., people loving their own ideas, wisdom, and thoughts and ideologies) -- are capable of some really intra-(!)cranial self-stimulation, i.e., stimulating themselves by purely internal means (ideas, thoughts, theories, ideologies, etc.).
Interestingly, such purely internal "self-stimulations" are linked with protestantic theology: see Martin Luther's fear of some "Self-justification" in the 16th c. (the beginning of modern man and a new philosophy, replacing the old theory of some "justification by god" by Thomas Aquinas).
Unfortunately, the neural and genetic underpinnings of such (theologic, philosophic, and even scientific) behaviours are not understood -- it is still not clear why only humans (but not the rats of Milner & Olds) are capable of some purely internal "self-stimulations" (e.g., when reading, developing new scientific theories that are rewarding per se, etc.).
Hence, is is still not understood, how "modern man" and its psychological set-up (after Luther et al.) came into existence...
Hence, the term "intracranial self-stimulation" should only be applied to humans (philosophers, ideologists, etc.).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.102.204.42 (talk) 17:07, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You're welcome to have your own opinion, but please don't force it into Wikipedia articles.  Unless these ideas can be attributed to a reputable published source, they don't belong here.  (For what it's worth, lots of scientific terminology is suboptimal in one way or another, but once terminology has been widely established it is nearly impossible to change, and trying to do so generally just annoys people.) Looie496 (talk) 18:07, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  ICSS is in fact an extracranial stimulation 