Talk:Coronary artery bypass surgery

@Cinadon36: This page has two ^{[citation needed]} tags that really should be resolved immediately. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:49, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Not any more! Thanks Cinadon36 20:40, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Recent edits by Wpntm have tried to increase the prominence of René Favaloro in the history section; while that might be a worthy goal, I'm not really sure that was the best way of going about it so I reverted them. The sources they used were good as far as these things go, but are not as comprehensive as the Head (2013) reference that's already in the article; I don't know much about the topic but I doubt there's a much better source than Head (2013), which also gives a little more prominence to Favaloro than we do ... although not in a very encyclopedic way. Also see the conversation about this on Wpntm's talk page, but further comments should probably go here. Pinging Cinadon36, the main writer of this page. Graham87 (talk) 15:49, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Totally agree with you @Graham87. I just want to add that sources from the NHS fail WP:MEDRS. Sources have to be published works at peer reviewed journals and books of the same level. Cinadon36 18:06, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you both for your comments. I'll review the literature again and get back to you. Wpntm (talk) 09:42, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Graham87 and welcome to WP! Allow me to give you an advice, since you are a new editor here:

• Backward editing: "Here is what the article should say, now let's find sources to support each fact..."
• Forward editing: "Here are three good sources about this topic, now let's summarize them..."

(From Levivich (talk · contribs)'s userpage). Choose the Forward editing. It will save you time and it is much more rewarding. Cheers! Cinadon36 21:27, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

@Cinadon36: I think you meant to address this to Wpntm, but I'd never encountered that link myself either; I entirely agree with its sentiments. Graham87 (talk) 04:04, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Also this user debated characterisation of them as a newby on their talk page ... but it's only your record as a registered editor that really counts here. It's impossible to verify any claimed contributions as an unregistered user except in unusual circumstances, anyhow. Graham87 (talk) 04:20, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Graham87. My bad, it was not meant for you. Thanks for pinging the right editor. Cinadon36 21:25, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I removed two recently added internal links to endoscopic harvesting. Not all, or even most, harvesting is done endoscopically. Moreover, sources are not saying such a thing. So, I believe it should not be added again. @Iztwoz:. Cinadon36 08:53, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Have restored previous edits but have changed the linked page name to Vessel harvesting. Thanks --Iztwoz (talk) 10:57, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

"Vessel harvesting" is much more appropriate, thanks. Note, linking once is sufficient, to avoid the "sea of blue" Cinadon36 12:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

You removed all links so have replaced one in lead and one in harvesting subsection known as a local link. It's usual to use links in captions too. Have also replaced the refs that you removed as nonMEDRS - Pages from websites of renowned organisations are constantly used usually providing up to date info. Have a look at the references sections of almost any medical/anatomy page. Examples from Good articles are found on Malaria, COPD, and Tuberculosis. CDC, NIH, NCBI, American Cancer Society, WHO factsheets and reports, NCI and more are all in use.--Iztwoz (talk) 22:19, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Definitely failing MEDRS the links you added. I will remove them again. I wont be looking at other article, I will be looking at the guideline and stick to it. We need peer reviewed articles or books. Cinadon36 15:23, 6 December 2023 (UTC)