Talk:Recurrent laryngeal nerve/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Seppi333 (talk · contribs) 02:22, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.^[1]

Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) 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);^[2] and

(c) it contains no original research.

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;^[3] and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

^[4]

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

^[5]

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.^[6]

Discussion

Overall, the article looks good. Just needs 1 minor tweak (source addition) and then it satisfies GA criteria. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 03:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking this review, Seppi333, sorry I have taken so long to respond. We inherited the sentence, and as I can't find any sources to support it (I think the contributor may have intended to refer to vagus nerve damage), I have removed the offending sentence. LT910001 (talk) 14:40, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review

Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	Sufficient with the noted typos addressed (see edit history).	Pass
(b) (MoS)	Made MOS:NBSP, MOS:NDASH, WP:MOSNUM, and word-symbol consistency fixes. Note: Not requiring this fix: there's currently a mix of American and British English, as noted in the automated PR.	Pass

Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	~~Fix the {{citation needed}} tag at the end of Recurrent laryngeal nerve#Injury.~~	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	Cited sources are reliable and sources for medical claims satisfy WP:MEDRS. (Excluding the issue with the CN tag noted in (2a))	Pass
(c) (original research)	No synth or OR.	Pass

Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	Coverage seems okay - nothing seems lacking.	Pass
(b) (focused)	Adequate scope.	Pass

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
No apparent WP:POV issues.	Pass

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
Obvioiusly stable.	Pass

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	All images have an appropriate free licence.	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	Pass after minor copyedits per WP:ALT.	Pass

Result

Result	Notes
Pass	This article looks like a GA based upon my assessment of the article and interpretation of the criteria. Well done! Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ \| Maintained)

Additional Notes

^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

[1] Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.

[2] Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.

[3] This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.

[4] Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.

[5] Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.

[6] The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]