Talk:Human nose/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ajpolino (talk · contribs) 23:43, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can take this review on. Give me a few days to get through it. Sorry for the very very long wait at WP:GAN. I hope all is well! Ajpolino (talk) 23:43, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Almost done! I've just got the short sections left. In general, the article looks good and very nearly meets the good article criteria. I've left some comments below. Separately, I've left some notes at the bottom that are not required to pass review, but are food for thought if you wish to further improve the article. Sorry for the slow trek through. Ajpolino (talk) 20:20, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Finished first pass through! Looking over your changes now. Ajpolino (talk) 15:25, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, the article is good, per the criteria. Once you address the citation needed tag, I'm happy to mark the article as passed. If you'll allow some unsolicited advice from someone in no position to give it: the structure section remains challenging for the non-specialist to decipher, and could be much improved. I've found several of the userspace essays concerning writing FAs to be helpful in this regard. For scientific writing in particular, I highly recommend this essay (it used to be free on JSTOR with login; if not, I can email you a copy if you're interested). That said, this article is clearly much-improved by your efforts. Thank you for the interesting read. Ping me when you hit the citation needed tag and I'll do the administrative bits. I hope all is well. Ajpolino (talk) 16:36, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ajpolino All done here.--Iztwoz (talk) 08:00, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Looks great. I hope all is well on your end. Ajpolino (talk) 17:23, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

a (prose, spelling, and grammar):

b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

Lead - the main function of the nose is respiration - The linked article Respiration (physiology) seems to be sort of a super-disambiguation. Maybe you could just change the words and link to breathing? I think it's the sense that's meant here, and it'll be more clear to readers...

Done--Iztwoz (talk) 09:24, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead - The nasal cavity is the third most effective vocal resonator - It's probably not clear to the lay reader what you mean by this (and Vocal resonation probably won't help).

Done--Iztwoz (talk) 09:24, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead looks great. As an aside, I like the first sentence. Short and sweet.

Structure - The nose is also mdae up of types of soft tissue such as skin, epithelia, mucous membrane, muscles, nerves, and blood. Do folks typically consider blood a soft tissue? Reads weird to me, but I'm no anatomist.

Done Have changed to blood vessels - thanks.--Iztwoz (talk) 09:50, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Structure>Bones - and the vomer bone that below. looks like a word is missing.

Done--Iztwoz (talk) 11:34, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Structure>Muscles - It divides at level of the nasal valve into superficial and deep layers, each layer having medial and lateral components. I'm not sure what this sentence means. What is "it", the nasal musculature as a whole?

Done Added SMAS--Iztwoz (talk) 11:34, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Structure>Nasal cavity - This area is also known as a mucocutaneous junction that has a dense microvasculature. Is it known as a "mucocutaneous junction that has a dense microvasculature", or is it known as a "mucutaneous junction" and as an added fun fact, it has a dense microvasculature? If the latter, could you clarify? It's unclear as written.

Done--Iztwoz (talk) 11:34, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Structure>Nasal cavity - ...the nasal cycle that slows down the air conditioning process. Could you clarify "that slows down the air conditioning process? For the average reader, Air conditioning will probably come to mind, and the article Nasal cycle doesn't really highlight slowing the conditioning process as the cycle's major role.

Done hopefully made clearer--Iztwoz (talk) 11:34, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Structure>Nasal cavity - It's not clear where the nasal valves are the way the section is currently written. Are these at the back of the nasal cavity? And is this distinct from the tissue that expands to cause the nasal cycle?

Done hopefuuly made clearer--Iztwoz (talk) 11:34, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Structure>Nasal cavity - I'm not sure what The angle between the septum and the sidewall needs to be sufficient for unobstructed airflow. is supposed to communicate. Presumably the angles between all components of the nose must be "sufficient for unobstructed airflow". Could you clarify?

Done --Iztwoz (talk) 11:34, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Structure>Nose shape - The first full paragraph (beginning "Other terms...") could be clearer if reorganized. It's confusing to read some nasal index numbers, then who developed it, then what the numbers represent.

Done redid --Iztwoz (talk) 11:34, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

a (reference section):

b (citations to reliable sources):

c (OR):

d (copyvio and plagiarism):

I don't have access to all the sources, but looks good and passes Earwigs.
Structure>Muscles - This is not really a problem per se, but is there a reason the sentence It is a prime target for Botox procedures[3] in the forehead to remove the lines between the eyes.[3] cites the same source twice?

Done --Iztwoz (talk) 11:47, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clinical significance - There's a citation needed tag in the list of conditions that can damage the nose (following leprosy).

3. It is broad in its coverage.

a (major aspects):

b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):

b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:

Pass/Fail:

A few miscellaneous things to consider that I think would improve the article, but are also partially (or entirely) personal preference, and are in no way required to pass this GA review:

I think the TOC has become a bit excessive in length. You can omit the lowest-level subheadings (i.e. "1.6.1, 1.6.2, and 1.6.3) using {{TOC limit}} should you choose.

Used the template which I was unaware of.--Iztwoz (talk) 15:08, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article has quite a few very very small paragraphs, which break up the read and add unnecessary white space, the worse offender of course being Human_nose#Movement. Consider merging some of them into complete paragraphs where appropriate.

Have merged some.--Iztwoz (talk) 15:08, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, some larger thoughts on improving the article going forward:

This article is clearly written for an anatomist. Right now for a layperson to understand large chunks of the Structure, Blood supply, and Nerve supply sections requires slow reading, careful study of the images, and lots of clicking into wikilinked anatomical features. Fortunately, nearly all Wikipedia editors have human noses, so if you'd like help identifying parts where a layreader gets lost in the jargon, I'm sure you won't have to go far.
On a similar note, the article is heavily about the structure of the human nose. If I print it as a PDF, I get ~70% structure sections, 7% function, ~12% clinical significance (the rest is the society & neanderthals sections). I know there's more to writing a good article than balancing page space exactly, and there are already articles on olfaction and breathing, but the article does seem a bit imbalanced towards anatomy...

That's probably a fair comment (as are your others) - the page resulted from the merging of Anatomy of the nose with Human nose which had been 'labour-intensive'. It does seem like there could be more on function.--Iztwoz (talk) 15:14, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Final thought (I think) - the Neanderthals sections is a bit weird. I typically think of the section headings as the 6-12 key topics on the article's subject. So structure, development, function, society and culture, et al. make perfect sense. But Neanderthals sticks out. Perhaps someday (not a requirement for this review of course) that section could be expanded with other material into an "Evolution" section.