Talk:Cranial nerves/GA1
GA Review[edit]
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Seppi333 (talk · contribs) 23:09, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Discussion[edit]
Figured this nom has waited in the queue long enough... hehe. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 23:12, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
After going through the entire page, I found a few clauses that I was unable to fix due to ambiguity in the prose:
- The accessory nerve (XI) is considered either a cranial nerve or a spinal nerve which emanates level with the brain-stem.[1] (Not sure what this means.)
Done - and arrises on level of the brain-stem.
- This is due to impairment in the lateral rectus muscle, which is innervated by the nerve.[1] (Which nerve?)
- Done - innervated by the abducens nerve.
- This jerk is a reflex involving an induced twitch in muscles involved in closing the jaw when upon tapping on the jaw. (No clue what that last part means.)
- Done - gives rise to twitch in some of the muscles involved in closing the jaw, and occurs when the jaw is tapped from a precise angle.
- The glossopharyngeal nerve (IX) is almost exclusively sensory in supplying five afferent nuclei of the brainstem, covering the oropharynx and back of the tongue with innervation.[1] (This sentence is written rather oddly. Not entirely sure what was meant.)
- Done - The glossopharyngeal nerve (IX) is almost exclusively sensory and supplies five afferent nuclei of the brainstem, providing sensory innervation to the oropharynx and back of the tongue.
There were a lot of misplaced semicolons, missing commas/periods, and run-on sentences, but I think I managed to fix these problems. In any event, I'll pass the prose criteria once these 4 sentences are fixed. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 01:04, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Review[edit]
- Well-written:
- Verifiable with no original research:
- Broad in its coverage:
- 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.
- Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
| Criteria | Notes | Result |
|---|---|---|
| (a) (prose) |  Pass
| |
| (b) (MoS) | Passes the minimal GA MOS requirements | Pass
|
| Criteria | Notes | Result |
|---|---|---|
| (a) (references) | Adequately referenced. | Pass
|
| (b) (citations to reliable sources) | All sources are medical, many are current. | Pass
|
| (c) (original research) | None. | Pass
|
| Criteria | Notes | Result |
|---|---|---|
| (a) (major aspects) | Extensively covered. | Pass
|
| (b) (focused) | Pass
|
| Notes | Result |
|---|---|
| No bias. | Pass
|
| Notes | Result |
|---|---|
| Obviously stable. | Pass
|
| Criteria | Notes | Result |
|---|---|---|
| (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) | All tagged, most PD. | Pass
|
| (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) | All captioned | Pass
|
Result[edit]
| Result | Notes |
|---|---|
| Pass |
Passes GA criteria. |
Criteria[edit]
Good Article Status - Review Criteria
A good article is—
- 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]
Additional Notes[edit]
- ^ 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.
- Thanks for the review, I am currently away for a few more days, but when I get home on Wednesday (20th) I will take on the comments, and I think I may be able to improve some minor things as well. 18:03, 18 August 2014 (UTC)