Talk:Accessory nerve

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The[edit]

The spinal part (ramus) of the accessory nerve actually enters the skull via the foramen magnum (rather than leaving the skull through that foramen), where it loosely joins with the cranial part (ramus) of that nerve to form the intracranial segment of the accessory nerve. Then, the fibers in the cranial ramus join with those of the vagus, while the fibers of the spinal ramus continue as a separate bundle. Finally, both the vagus nerve (with the cranial ramus fibers of the accessory) and the accessory nerve proper leave the skull through the jugular foramen.

Rewrite[edit]

I rewrote the article from the stance that accessory nerve has only a spinal component, but didn't want to eliminate the mention of the cranial component altogether. The result is a bit of a mish-mash as I didn't separate out the various classification schemes as clearly as I perhaps could have. I'll be doing another reorganization so that the article speaks only of the spinal accessory nerve, with a section devoted to the traditional description and a note on how that description has been shown to be erroneous. --David Iberri (talk) 22:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Kostas20142 (talk · contribs) 18:17, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

review[edit]

Hello, I am Kostas20142. I am going to review this article. --Kostas20142 (talk) 18:17, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for taking up this review, Kostas20142. I'll be away this coming weekend (including Monday) but will get back to your comments within a week. Looking forward to your commentary, --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:52, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
@Kostas20142 done. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well written:
1a. the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct.

The article is well -written with a clear and concise prose. No major grammatical errors or misspellings found.

1b. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

Fully compliant.

2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
2b. all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines.

References have been improved per the comments below. All sources are reliable. Therefore the article meets the requirements for GA regarding in-line citations.

2c. it contains no original research.

No original research found.

2d. it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism.

No plagiarism or copyright violations found. Supplementary automated check has been conducted, the results of which indicate no violation

3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.

All main aspects of the topic are sufficiently covered.

3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

The article stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary details.

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

No editorial bias or the issues that would compromise the neutrality of the article have been found.

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

Very stable article, no edit warring found. Only some minor unproductive contributions by IP editor some months ago that have been reverted. Other contributions-reversions have been productive

6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:
6a. images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content.

All images are properly tagged with their license status. No non-free content found.

6b. images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

All images are relevant to the topic and have suitable captions.

7. Overall assessment.

Per my comments above and the improvements described below, the article meets all GA criteria.

comments[edit]

  • I found a "citation needed" template in structure section, paragraph 1. Could someone fix it and then remove the template?
  • In variation section, 1st par., the citation supports the whole paragraph and not just the number of necks examined, so it should be positioned at it's end, after full stop.
    •  Done improved the citations and wording of that section --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Proposed modification (bold text is used only to identify the exact text): "Surgical management includes neurolysis, nerve end to end suturing, and surgical replacement of affected trapezius muscle segments with other muscle groups." → Surgical management includes neurolysis, nerve end-to-end suturing, and surgical replacement of affected trapezius muscle segments with other muscle groups. This is how I also found it in relevant articles and I believe it is the correct version.
  • Several sundry edits, including improvement of captions and removing of an unhelpful lead image, also performed. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)