Talk:Axillary arch/GA1

GA Review

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

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)