Talk:Human musculoskeletal system

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Human musculoskeletal system was a Natural sciences good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
March 27, 2009 Peer review Reviewed
July 23, 2009 Good article nominee Not listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Heirloom of my efforts[edit]

Due to my lack of knowledge on wikipedia I have decided to discontinue work on this article. Feel free to pick it up where I left off. Good luck to anyone set on improving this article. Cheers, Dondevoy01 (talk) 16:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Work in progress[edit]

I am currently working on rewording the entire article for better fluency and to eliviate all plagerism.Dondevoy01 (talk) 02:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


--Dondevoy01 (talk) 15:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Graded --JimmyButler (talk) 21:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


Isn't it ironic that the stub label at the bottom links straight to this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


The Musculoskeletal System is a system that allows the body to move to a more favourable position

Fixed. Don't "walk on by." If you see vandalism, fix it. You do not need to have an account to do this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


Why is this page full of random text? I really hate people who sabotage wikipedia. You are just Agreed!

I second that!

Vandals! Please fix!

Savages!! .... I say it gets Fixed —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Citations inserted[edit]

You used an excellent source. Accessible on the web and credible. However, in completing the information in the template you neglected to include information that is available. For example: the date of the entries publication. Be diligent in providing as much information as is available on the reference that you've chose to include. Please correct this deficiency --JimmyButler (talk) 17:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I think I have fixed it now, I added the author. Also I am not quite sure the date of publication is specific enough, it only says 2001.--Dondevoy01 (talk) 20:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Online books are actually better cited using Template:Cite book, becuase that template can provide a more complete reference: one that includes both links to the book title/cover page, and to the specific chapter/page used in the reference. In particular, pay close attention to the use of title, url, chapter, and chapterurl parameters in your citation. I'll leave it up to you to correct the citation. Don't forget to avoid all caps. Ask if you have any questions! Chaldor (talk) 21:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Hydrostatic skeleton[edit]

The introduction references this topic as a component of the human body- the a brief tie in to hydrostatic skeletons. Should this addition be within the scope of the title? --JimmyButler (talk) 19:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm was going for a more general approach by introducing the Hydrostatic musckulosketetal system because I deduced that it may be within the same subject as "Musculoskeletal systems". Perhaps I need to change the title of the article to Musculoskeletal system[s]?--Dondevoy01 (talk) 22:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


Have done a review of this article. It is has some formatting issues, is too narrow in its focus, and insufficiently referenced to fulfill WP:good article criteria. Therefore even though it has made substantial progress I must fail it at this point in time.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to critque my article. I will review what you have suggested and make improvements. --Dondevoy01 (talk) 18:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Another good reference[edit],M1

--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Motivation for article[edit]

The musculoskeletal system is probably a good subject for a Wikipedia article. But the current article does not really show that it is. It has a very difficult problem of demarcation. The article currently contains an intro to the subject, an intro to diseases, a list of subsystems (components) and a (very short) list of diceases. But the article does not show why precisely this set of components should be collected together in an article. A provocacative counter example: there should not be a common article about the combination of facial hair, the liver and the left big toe. The reason is that there is nothing that these body parts do together. But there is for the musculoskeletal system. But currently the article does not describe what the musculoskeletal system does as a system. So, what is it that muscles and bones can do together, but neither muscles nor bones can do on their own? --Ettrig (talk) 13:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that osteoporosis does not belong in this article. The problem of osteoporosis is confined to the skeleton. This article should be limited to those phenomena that involve the cooperation between the components. Carpal tunnel syndrome is rather foreign in this context. The carpal tunnel itself is a space that is defined by bones and tendons. But the most important subsystem in this disease is the nerve system, which is not mentioned as a part of the musculoskeletal system. --Ettrig (talk) 13:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


Why does this article contain info about nerves?--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I have been informed by numerous fellow wikipedians that the nervous system is part of the musculoskeletal system. I felt an overall summation of the system along with how it ties into the musculoskeletal system would be suffecient. I have yet to get to the tie in though. Dondevoy01 (talk) 23:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Human musculoskeletal system/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Still narrow in focus[edit]

  1. Needs section on development
  2. seems to be a duplication of content at Muscular system and Human skeleton
  3. still nothing on history and culture (see last review) Talk:Human musculoskeletal system/GA1

--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Nothing's been done, so I wold just fail it instead of waiting any longer. Wizardman 20:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I think class is done and they have moved on.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

woman feet[edit]

what does long woman feet show or mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:17, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Muscle posterior labeled.png Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Icon Now Commons orange.svg An image used in this article, File:Muscle posterior labeled.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Narrow perspective[edit]

It seems to me to be extraordinary to describe this as the human musculoskeletal system when it is a general characteristic of all vertebrates, and similar in detail to most tetrapods. It is a bit like describing in isolation the exoskelton of a single species of beetle, and not mentioning its significance for arthropods in general. Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:35, 3 July 2015 (UTC)