Jump to content

Talk:Anatomical terms of location/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: ArnabSaha (talk · contribs) 20:46, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


I will review this soon.

Thank you! I am able to respond to any concerns or queries you have, and will have the coming weekend to start making any changes you think are required. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:50, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

[edit]
  • Multiple unsourced paras and sentences
  • Citation need tag is also there.

I'm afraid as the article is in a quick-fail condition. ❯❯❯   S A H A 18:47, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks for taking this up, you make some reasonable points. I've started by clearing up the first half of the article and attending to citation needed tags there. I will try to attend to more next tomorrow and next week if the review isn't failed by then :).
    • With regard to unsourced content, there is definitely some remaining (sorry about that, was intending to address it during the wait but got distracted...).
    • With regard to example sentences that are unsourced, I am not sure they need to (WP:WTC / WP:SKYISBLUE). Generally speaking it is my feeling they fall under "sky is blue", "Subject-specific common knowledge" and "Cited elsewhere in the article" (as in, the meaning of the word has been cited). It takes forever and a day to find citations for these kind of examples because they are so obvious they remain unstated. Some more complex examples that I feel are less likely to be generally known I have however cited. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:19, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments

[edit]
  • The one-sentence para in lead isn't looking good (MOS:PARA). Also its short as compared to the article size. Avoid citation in lead (WP:CITELEAD).
  • The 'spiders' section is unsourced.
  • I will prefer "Axes" section in bulleted points instead of a table. As all other sections are bullet points.
  • "vocabuliaries" --> vocabularies
  • "terms terms" --> terms
  • "in a quadruped this divides the animal into anterior and posterior sections." --> a comma after quadruped.
    •  Done
❯❯❯   S A H A 21:09, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ArnabSaha I hopefully have addressed your concerns regarding referencing, phrasing and the lead. The article may need another read-through (particularly the last section about specific animals) as I have made some changes to prose in this regard. Happy to address anything at all that you think needs changing, including for example duplications, poor formatting, and unclear wording. Cheers --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:12, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. The article changed a lot. I will go through it again. Also, I have requested for 2nd opinion, in case I miss something.  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  11:06, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, good idea and the more eyes the merrier for this article. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:03, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Saha. Is there anything in particular you want an opinion on? AIRcorn (talk) 22:06, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is some strange artifact at the end of the sub section of Modifiers.
  • Not so keen on the bolding. It seems excessive, especially mid sentence.
  • I am also not sure about the uncited examples (I see this was mentioned above). I can see the point both ways on this.
Just a few points from a quick glance. Not sure the last two are necessarily part of the GA criteria though. AIRcorn (talk) 22:15, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Aircorn, thanks for the 2nd opinion. I wanted 2nd opinion on the whole article (I'm not mentally and physically well, since I'm tested covid positive)...  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  16:39, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to hear that. I can give the article a proper read through and provide a few comments if you want. Is there anything in particular you were concerned about? AIRcorn (talk) 18:09, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hope you get better soon ArnabSaha. I would have no objections to a full review Aircorn, this article has been particularly difficult to structure, stylise and write so I don't mind receiving another opinion about it. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:04, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
thanks <3 Aircorn and Tom (LT)... In the article I don't see any major issue as there were before. Still a full review will be best.  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  12:08, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note to say I haven't forgotten about this. Just got real busy. Will try and have a look over the weekend. AIRcorn (talk) 23:05, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No problem Aircorn, let me know when you're ready. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:40, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

Sorry this took so long. I attempted a few times, but found it hard going. It is unlike articles I am used to reviewing, in as much as it feels more like a textbook glossary than an actual article. For example I was expecting a history section. There is some info out there [1][2] Also it consists of a lot of short one sentence paragraphs that I would usually not like, but I think they fit in the article as it is. Images are another thing. There are a lot of them and I can see why we need more than usual, but many are not very useful as they are so small it is impossible to make out the important details. I don't know whether there is a case for increasing the size of a some. What I see here is good. It reads well and is very accurate and informative. Sourcing gets a bit light toward the end, some statements probably need one.

  • Why do we say one type of vertebrate when talking about humans? Would For humans and other vertebrates that ... get the same point across?
  • This means descriptions are with respect to the organism in its standard anatomical position, even when the organism in question has appendages in another position. Is "are with respect" correct. It sounds odd to me, but I am not sure if it is wrong.
    •  Done let me know what you think
  • Images. I understand why we have lots and I also understand why we use {{clear}}. I do wonder if we can reduce them somewhat though. There are 5 on Axes and I would wager the text in the images and captions equals the lenght of text in the body. It is also hard to see the text in some of the images due to size. You also list examples without explaining them (i.e what is a cephalocaudal axis?)
    •  Question: anatomy, particularly in a meta topic like this, this is a necessarily visual subject so I have tried to include relevant images, multiple ones for concepts (such as axes) in different scenarios, and ideally single images for specific terms. I'm very keen to hear which images you think would be unnecessary or which captions could be improved (which I agree could definitely be the case). Do you mind giving me a bit more detail :)?
      • I understand and accept the reasons for the images. If I had a choice I would replace or reduce the ones with the small writing on them. It is impossible to see them without clicking on them. You could force them to be bigger I suppose, but I am not sure that is the solution. The white space is a bit pronounced in some sections so maybe some rearranging could work. Sorry no good answer to your question. They are relevant so not seeing a GA issue. AIRcorn (talk) 22:33, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Xray anteroposterior projection is mentioned as an example twice.
    •  Done
  • These terms are frequently used when describing appendages such as fins, tentacles, limbs or any structure that extends that can potentially move separately from the main body. I am having trouble parsing this.
    •  Done
  • These terms refer to the distance of a structure from the surface or structure. distance of a structure from a structure? It seems too vague.
    •  Done I think it's simpler to just say from the surface. I was trying to say something more complex but the general meaning stands.
  • For example, as humans are approximately bilaterally symmetrical organisms, anatomical descriptions usually use the same terms as those for vertebrates Humans are vertebrates so not sure what this example is saying.
    •  Done clarified
  • Rostral part is repeated above
    • here it's used as an example of a term that differs in some groups of animals.
  • Citing a bit sparse on the invertebrates paragraph in Specific animals and other organisms and the Asymmetrical and spherical organisms.
    • Oh dear, this was indeed the worst section for me to update and cite. The problem is that most of the content is obvious, for example "In organisms with a changeable shape, such as amoeboid organisms, most directional terms are meaningless", so nobody has thought to actually write it in a book or journal. Could you help me out and point me to which areas you feel need citations and happy to address those
  • Radially symmetrical organisms always have one distinctive axis. What is meant by this? Is this referring to the third paragraph?
  • The see also gets a bit general (i.e port and starboard). Not a GA issue though.
    •  Done not sure how these crept in. They are certainly not anatomical in the conventional sense of the word (ie used to refer to the structure of living organisms).

Not sure what to do. It is good and I can see how it would be difficult to resolve some of the issues. Will see what you think Tom. AIRcorn (talk) 06:06, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anatomical_terms_of_location/GA1&oldid=993496061"