Talk:Axillary arch

Axillary arch has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: May 7, 2017. (Reviewed version).

Articles for creation

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted from this draft on 30 September 2015 by reviewer Onel5969 (talk · contribs).

Anatomy: Gross Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anatomy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anatomy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnatomyWikipedia:WikiProject AnatomyTemplate:WikiProject AnatomyAnatomy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been classified as relating to gross anatomy.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Axillary arch/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:39, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I'll take a look. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:39, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The extent of the muscularisation of the arch is variable... - maybe make it more accessible like, "The proportion of muscle to fibrous tissue in the arch is variable..." or something?

Done simplified --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~You have both "tendonous" and "tendinous" in the article...~~

Done corrected --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Several human muscles are considered discrete muscles originally part of the panniculus carnosus.. - I think this needs a verb?

Done simplified --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have put in one ^{[citation needed]} tag. It'd be good if something could be added there as it is otherwise a one-sentence section. Surely there must be some discussion about it...

Done --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:19, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~In the '"Structure section, it doesn't really tell the reader what shape it is.~~

Done a very good point. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:19, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the references are quite old, though this is not such an issue as with medical articles...

Thanks, these are good points. Small roadblock reached in that I do not have access to the sources, have requested on the resource exchange and hopefully by next weekend will have responded to your remaining concerns. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:35, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Casliber

Done I have given this article a thorough copyedit, simplified terms, and expanded it. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:19, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, will look at it again soon. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:55, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

although one study has reported differences in strength and proprioception between those with and without the arch, differing also between men and women - reporting which group had better strength and proprioception, and exactly how men and women differed is important here.

Done a difficult one, because the sample size is very small and I don't want to give WP:UNDUE attention, however there aren't any other (that I could find) actual functional studies of the axillary arch, so it is important to include some reference to the study. --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:21, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1. Well written?:

Prose quality:

Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:

NB: Earwig's copyvio clear

Citations to reliable sources, where required:

No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:

~~see above~~.

Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

Overall:

Pass or Fail:

- ~~right, one question above, otherwise~~...I think it is ok. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:06, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NB: It is not an issue for GA-hood, but it'd be good for the references to be formatted consistently. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:19, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done I have tried what citations I can but I have limited time to devote to this encyclopedia and will spend it editing other articles. Have changed some where I could (ie where doi and PMID exist)