Talk:Nerve compression syndrome

Nerve compression syndrome was nominated as a Natural sciences good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (August 16, 2024, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Medicine: Neurology Mid‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Neurology task force.

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Nerve compression syndrome.

PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles)
The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine.
Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

Clarificaiton Requested

Does this entry refer only to a problem of a chronic nature caused by an external event or abnormality? Or does it also include a situation of loss of sensation from a temporary, non-chronic nature? Like, sleeping on your arm wrong one day, and waking up with it utterly numb for a few seconds, only to return without issue momentarily?

If so we definetly need to make that clear. 74.132.249.206 (talk) 05:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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

Nominator: FloridaMan21 (talk · contribs) 23:22, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk · contribs) 02:29, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	The syndromes section is almost completely unsourced. Because of this I am not going to take the time to individually verify other sources. If this issue is fixed I will verify the other sources.
	2c. it contains no original research.	For the same reasons as 2b.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	The second paragraph in Pathophysiology is plagiarized from "Biological Response of Peripheral Nerves to Loading: Pathophysiology of Nerve Compression Syndromes and Vibration Induced Neuropathy". National Academies Press (US). 1999.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The infobox image and caption don't seem super relevant. I found several more relevant images on commons. I recommend changing the infobox image to something more relevant such as the image I included below.
	7. Overall assessment.	Based on the copyright issues and unsourced section I think this article fails to meet the criteria. If these issues are fixed I would be happy to do a full review in the future however I do not feel it is worth my time to do so with the current issues.