Talk:Defibrillation threshold

Wiki Education assignment: 2025-26 TCOM WikiMed

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 March 2026 and 28 March 2026. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): TigerTheGodfather (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Mgoliver27.

— Assignment last updated by Butterchicken228 (talk) 01:18, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

My plan is to restructure the article, add a lead section, include the difference between ICD and external defibrillator devices, add a picture to illustrate my topic — Preceding unsigned comment added by TigerTheGodfather (talk • contribs) 17:47, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Peer review

Lead - I think adding the 2nd sentence is helpful, as it provides a good introduction to the sections in your article. In my opinion, the 3rd sentence seems out of place since it originally followed the 1st sentence. I think to make this better, it might be helpful to break the lead into 3 paragraphs - definition, external defibrillator, and implantable cardiac defibrillator. I think this would help the flow of the article and set up the later sections quite nicely.

Content and organization - In general, I think the content is well organized and thorough. One recommendation I have would be to move the "mechanism" section to before "external defibrillators" as it applies to both of the following sections, though I do think it would be fine to keep it as is. I think adding information about implantable cardiac defibrillators was helpful since this wasn't thoroughly explored in earlier versions of the article. I think it might be helpful to break up the "implantable cardiac defibrillator" section into more paragraphs as the single paragraph covers a lot of information and might be intimidating to a reader. I did not notice many grammatical errors, though I think some sentences could be worded more concisely (see below).

For the following sentence - "A greater defibrillation threshold is usually required for patients on amiodarone, those with dilated cardiomyopathy, patients with a lower left ventricular ejection fraction, and the presence of cardiac resynchronization therapy devices." I think this could be reworded in a more concise manner, such as "a greater defibrillation threshold is usually required for patients with dilated cardiomyopathy, a lower left ventricular ejection fraction, a cardiac resynchronization therapy device, and/or on amiodarone."

For the following sentence: "Because of this, several facilities now save defibrillation testing for patients who are more likely to require a greater defibrillation threshold." I think the word 'save' is a little confusing for me here. Did you mean 'offer'?

Tone - I think you did a good job of maintaining a neutral tone throughout the article. No comments.

References - Great job adding more references! I do think the references have some limitations as many of them are quite dated and several of them are primary rather than secondary sources. If they are available, I would look for some more recent review articles (past 10 years) as these tend to be more neutral and have more generalizable data. It might also be helpful to include some textbook references for this particular topic as well! I also think it would be helpful to include multiple references per section rather than using a single source for an entire chunk of information.

Media - I think it's awesome that you included a picture! I think the picture is good, but I would double check if there is a picture of the actual defibrillator itself rather than its packaging and/or even a picture of an implantable cardiac defibrillator. I know there are limitations to what we can use, so if neither of these options are available, I think this picture is great!

Overall impressions - I think you did a great job expanding this article and introducing sections apart from the lead. I think the organization is good, but might benefit from a couple of changes. In general, I think the wording is good though some sentences could be worded more concisely. In general, I think the main limitation with this article is the references. Like I mentioned before, I would exclude trials / case studies in favor of secondary sources like review articles. I would also look for more recent literature, preferably in the past 10 years. Overall, I think the article looks great! Good job (: Mgoliver27 (talk) 14:53, 18 March 2026 (UTC)