Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Bone cross-section
I feel that this image is well-made. I am not an expert on this subject, so I was wondering if anyone could put their input on this image. For example, if I missed labeling anything, or any parts of the bone are missing.
- Creator
- Pbroks13
- Nominated by
- --pbroks13talk? 17:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Comments
- This picture contains an error. While beautifully made the image incorrectly shows an articular surface on the major trochanter. As the major trochanter is not part of any joint, it does not have an articular surface but is instead the attachment site of the gluteus medius https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluteus_medius. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annika.v.S. (talk • contribs) 13:33, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- This seems to be a good start, but could probably do with a bit more work (esp. in terms of an FPC nomination). I'll mention a few things in terms of questions or short comments (but not intended to be a comprehensive list):
- Why are the colours faded on the cross-section part? I don't find it enhances the image.
- Why is the marrow red? And why does the marrow stop where it does, and so sharply? Marrow in the shaft of long bones is typically yellow, with red marrow in the head through the cancellous bone.
- Would it be a good thing to show the epiphyseal plate?
- Why the inconsistent use of more technical terms, e.g., you use periosteum, but don't say use cancellous/trabecular bone?
- I personally find the blood vessels a bit dominant (and generic) for a diagram designed to illustrate bones.
- I don't like way you've shown the cartilage. It seems confusing and misleading. For example, to read this diagram literally, since the cartilage can be seen inside the cutaway section of bone, it incorrectly indicates that the cartilage in fact goes through the bone structure, rather than just being found around the bone end.
- If you are considering putting this at FPC, you'll need to quote some references on the image page.
- I'll leave it there, but it would be a good idea to have a good read through the bone related articles, starting of course with bone. Thanks for your work so far. --jjron (talk) 13:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for your input. I think I made correct adjustments. Is there anything I missed or anything else that could be improved? --pbroks13talk? 23:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'd still have a few issues with it. You've changed the colour of the bone marrow, but it still just stops abruptly, and there's no sign of red marrow in the spongy bone. I also don't like how the bone and the marrow is the same colour - I'm not claiming to be an expert, but I recently did a bone dissection and the bone is certainly more white than the marrow. I don't believe the epiphyseal plates are in the right spot, and to me the main diagram in the Epiphyseal plate article, which yours resembles, is misleading. There may be variations, but in my experience epiphyseal plates are further down the bone and there's only one. This is more what I am thinking of and what I've seen in my first-hand experience, though the plate is not that prominent (if you do a Google image search on it you'll see some photos that show you what I mean). And FWIW your cartilage is too pointy at the spot where the second arrow is pointing; cartilage, at least healthy cartilage, should be very smooth. I personally don't feel it's up to FPC standards, but will leave it with you. (BTW you don't seem to have addressed my original 1, 5, and 7, but that's up to you). --jjron (talk) 10:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- Okay. About the abrupt stop for the yellow marrow, its for the same reason the bone stops abruptly. Also, the red marrow, where is it in the spongy bone? I read its in the "spaces" but, being also no expert on the subject, I'm not sure where exactly it would be. I fixed the Epiphyseal plate, bone color problem, and the cartilage's pointy-ness (I haven't uploaded the new image yet). A few things though. The reason I didnt do #1 is because if I kept the color the same, the lighting wouldnt really work too well. It looks odd without a color change. For #5, I actually removed some of the blood vessels, is there still too much? I havent added sources yet (#7), but I will once I feel that the picture is up to par. Thanks for all your help! --pbroks13talk? 02:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- OK, will leave it up to you where to stop the marrow, I see what you mean. I tend to prefer those sort of wavy angled ends (not sure if you'll understand what I mean by that, but more like what you show up around the 'medullary caivity' label (note the typo on 'caivity' BTW, also this version has a typo on Epiphyseal (Ephiphyseal) which you may have fixed)) when you're indicating that the thing is being illustrated to finish somewhere where it doesn't really, rather than showing it as an abrupt break. Re the red marrow, yes that is correct, it is in the spaces in the spongy bone, i.e., it basically fills in the spaces. OK, ultimately up to you I guess how you think the colours work best. Re the blood vessels, didn't realise you'd removed any since you just put this newer version over the old one rather than as an edit, but fair enough. Spose you've just got to get it to the standard where you're happy. Cheers, --jjron (talk) 14:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- Okay. About the abrupt stop for the yellow marrow, its for the same reason the bone stops abruptly. Also, the red marrow, where is it in the spongy bone? I read its in the "spaces" but, being also no expert on the subject, I'm not sure where exactly it would be. I fixed the Epiphyseal plate, bone color problem, and the cartilage's pointy-ness (I haven't uploaded the new image yet). A few things though. The reason I didnt do #1 is because if I kept the color the same, the lighting wouldnt really work too well. It looks odd without a color change. For #5, I actually removed some of the blood vessels, is there still too much? I havent added sources yet (#7), but I will once I feel that the picture is up to par. Thanks for all your help! --pbroks13talk? 02:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'd still have a few issues with it. You've changed the colour of the bone marrow, but it still just stops abruptly, and there's no sign of red marrow in the spongy bone. I also don't like how the bone and the marrow is the same colour - I'm not claiming to be an expert, but I recently did a bone dissection and the bone is certainly more white than the marrow. I don't believe the epiphyseal plates are in the right spot, and to me the main diagram in the Epiphyseal plate article, which yours resembles, is misleading. There may be variations, but in my experience epiphyseal plates are further down the bone and there's only one. This is more what I am thinking of and what I've seen in my first-hand experience, though the plate is not that prominent (if you do a Google image search on it you'll see some photos that show you what I mean). And FWIW your cartilage is too pointy at the spot where the second arrow is pointing; cartilage, at least healthy cartilage, should be very smooth. I personally don't feel it's up to FPC standards, but will leave it with you. (BTW you don't seem to have addressed my original 1, 5, and 7, but that's up to you). --jjron (talk) 10:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for your input. I think I made correct adjustments. Is there anything I missed or anything else that could be improved? --pbroks13talk? 23:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- Seconder
On the proximal end of the femur, there are two growth plates. The previous image was correct, with one between the diaphysis and the head of the femur (which is an ossification center) and the other between the greater trochanter and the diaphysis. The only section of the proximal end of the femur that articulates is the head. The greater tronchater is for muscle attachment. Also, you may want to do some research on the nutrient foramen for placement of your blood vessel.