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

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: LT910001 (talk · contribs) 01:32, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

If there are no objections I'll take this review. I'd like to note I haven't had any part in editing or creating this articles. I welcome the contributions of any other editors during this review. LT910001 (talk) 01:32, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well written:
1a. the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct. Greatly improved; prose is good, spelling & grammar 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:
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.
2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. Addresses main aspects.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Yes
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 images:
6a. images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content.
6b. images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Yes.
7. Overall assessment.

Specific commentary[edit]

Hello again, Cwmhiraeth. You are indeed a busy bee! A few comments about this article:

  • This article has a very uneven structure. Some parts (eg animal anatomy) are extensive, whereas other parts are just lists. Some parts are suffocated by images (eg. Research and practice), other parts are very bare.
Have converted the list of systems to a structured table; it summarizes a very large body of knowledge which is covered in the linked articles. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:09, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
The article has essentially one image per section, which seems reasonable. Both with a narrow window and a maximized one, this seems to work fine. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:09, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
The article is looking much better with these changes. LT910001 (talk) 11:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
  • This article needs to be more broad. There are some areas relating to anatomy that should be covered here. These include: anatomists (and the worldwide shortage of), social and ethical issues (eg grave-robbing, paid cadaver donation, historical development of hand-washing due to Ignaz Semmelweis' observation, photography of bodies?); techniques used in anatomical examination (dissection, imaging)
We are working on this. However, grave-robbing and the like are already covered, as is the use of imaging, while hand-washing and the discovery of bacteria are not directly on this topic. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:09, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
My reference to Semmelweis may have had you scratching your head; medical students at the time would examine cadavers and not clean their clothes or their hands, believing it to be a mark of esteem. He discovered transmission of disease from the dissection of dead bodies to pregnant mothers (resulting in appalling mortality rates) could be ameliorated with handwashing. An interesting sidenote in the history of anatomical dissection. LT910001 (talk) 11:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
I have added Semmelweis to the article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:58, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
As I'm sure you know this was just a small sidenote and wouldn't have affected GA nomination, but thanks for including this. LT910001 (talk) 21:43, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

This said, your articles that I have seen are usually of very high quality, so I look forward to your future attention. Awaiting your response; kind regards, LT910001 (talk) 01:43, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for taking on this review. It will take us a few days to work through the points you raise above and make the necessary improvements. There are main articles on Human anatomy, Outline of human anatomy and Human body so I believe that information on human anatomy should be summarized here rather than dealt with in full. At the time we worked on improving the article a few months ago we were responding to a lot of tags, see this version, and concentrated on dealing with the issues they raised. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:16, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
No rush, take your time. Kind regards, LT910001 (talk) 03:41, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
We think we're pretty much finished now, unless there's something specific you feel we've missed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:16, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you and well done, this is a wonderful article and I have promoted it to GA status. LT910001 (talk) 21:43, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much for doing the review. Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:08, 16 October 2013 (UTC)