Jump to content

Talk:Hypoglossal nerve/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: Shaded0 (talk · contribs) 01:38, 5 March 2017 (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):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  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, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·


I will begin on the GA review here over the next couple of days and hope to have some time to read over and list some items to work on here per the review process. Any questions, comments, concerns, please respond below here. I'll also add my comments in asterisks to differentiate them from any that you would like to add. Thanks again for taking the time to submit this through GA review.

Note I might need to do some side research or ask some questions on this. I'll give you a heads up if I have clarification questions or concerns. First thing I'll probably look at here is highlighting formatting and GA basic criteria before looking over content, etc.

  • Galleries should have introductions per GA criteria (I would suggest add this or reorganize for additional images).
  • Couple sections could use more variety of sources, some sections using only M. J. T. Fitzgerald; Gregory Gruener; Estomih Mtui (2012). Clinical Neuroanatomy and Neuroscience
    • Could you elaborate what you mean here? Are you concerned about the content written, or the number of sources? --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:33, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Moreso with adding some additional sources, the "Damage" subsection under "Clinical significance" for example only pulls from one source, so verifying the info is correct with second source to complement and add to the same would be a good improvement.
  • Development section should be expanded upon, currently only one sentence, couple other paragraphs with one sentence that could be expanded or merged together
    •  Done phew, that was a difficult one. Done --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:32, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Great, I saw one disambig page that got added with this, I updated it to Human development (biology) since I assume this is most appropriate.
  • Other animals only has one source
    •  Doing... good point, I am getting to this...
  • Make sure that lead section adequately summarizes the article. The lead should be expanded upon in this article to adequately reflect each of the subsections content.
    • Not sure about this. I think the lead does a fairly good job of summarising the article. What else would you suggest I include?--Tom (LT) (talk) 23:32, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • The structure and anatomy seems to be summarized in the lead, but adding some info from the "Clinical significance" and "Other animals" may help. If you have the info sourced within the article you can also include some of the same in the lead without full sources since sources is included within the section. A good (if maybe slightly excessively detailed) reference might be here Aristotle's biology, where most subsections are at least briefly mentioned within the lead section.
"The lead is the first part of the article that most people will read. For many, it may be the only section that they read. A good lead section cultivates the reader's interest in reading more of the article, but not by teasing the reader or hinting at content that follows. The lead should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view."
- Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section
OK, I've expanded it slightly. --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:16, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsure on if this image meets public domain File:Gray794.png, if it is based upon author's death, this will not have been 100 yrs, I can see the illustrator meets this, but worth reviewing.
  • This image is also unclear if this has correct permissions form the author: File:Brain human normal inferior view with labels en.svg
    • Can you explain further? The image when viewed has a large tag that states "I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license:" --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:32, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I took another look and this one looks like it was originally uploaded by Patrick J. Lynch, medical illustrator - I just wanted to clarify if this was false attribution of authorship.
  • Other image use looks fine, please switch orientation for File:Lawrence 1960 17.26.png from left to right to avoid left oriented image at the start of subsection. Captions meet requirements.
  • Wikilinking looks fine, a couple links link to non-existent pages.
  • No quotes that need citing since the article does not use direct quotes.
  • No copyright violations from what I can tell, do not have access to the print sources to verify on these. Checked urls with: https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/.
    • Thanks, and that's a very useful too to have access to when I look at other articles in the future :).
  • Seems to meet NPOV.

Please take a look at these and I'll review any new changes. Thanks!

Thanks for taking up this review. I'll get to addressing your notes within a few days after you've put in your comprehensive review. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your patience. Getting around to the "animals" section shortly... --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:32, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies - went away for a couple of days at short notice. Have not forgotten - sorry about the delay. --Tom (LT) (talk) 12:33, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, on reflection and reading through the document, I still would like to make some edits to prose to improve readability and clarify a few things. So if it is OK, still  Doing... --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:42, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Phew, @Shaded0 I am much happier with the quality of the article now and have finished my editing run... you may want to re-review it given the extent of my changes, otherwise if you are happy I'm happy to continue addressing your concerns. Looking forward to your reply,--Tom (LT) (talk) 11:11, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, couple things as I am reviewing over the article for content here. Overall I think it meets GA criteria. I cleaned up the sources for matching numbering and a few small COPYEDIT things. There is still a bit of choppiness in some of the smaller paragraphs that can be expanded upon (Development and History could both potentially be expanded upon) but I think it really looks good and is informative. Let me know when you have a change to look at the remaining items and I'll go ahead and sign off for the GA on the article. Shaded0 (talk) 15:01, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Other Animals

  • When mentioning at the end "This hypothesis has been refuted." can you expand upon this?
    • A difficult one. I want to mention the nerve and this controversy, but I don't want to delve too deeply into it as that borders on WP:OR, so I am employing this middle road. Interested readers can do their own research :).--Tom (LT) (talk) 10:16, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, Shaded0, the article has definitely improved with your commentary. --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:16, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hypoglossal_nerve/GA1&oldid=772617371"