Talk:Stapes

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Stapes article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Stapes has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
December 30, 2013	Peer review	Reviewed
January 23, 2014	Good article nominee	Listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on January 25, 2014.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the stapes, named for its resemblance to a stirrup, is the smallest bone in the human body, measuring 3 mm × 2.5 mm (0.118 in × 0.098 in)?

Current status: Good article

Anatomy: Gross Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anatomy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anatomy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnatomyWikipedia:WikiProject AnatomyTemplate:WikiProject AnatomyAnatomy articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been classified as relating to gross anatomy.

smallest bone?

it is the smallest bone in the body, right? and the smallest muscle is also connected it it??

Page name?

I don't understand, why is the page called "stapes" when there is no reference to that word whatsoever, and it's only referred to as the "stirrup"?--76.226.104.6 (talk) 23:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The name stapes (pronounced "stay-peas") is middle/late Latin for stirrup. AFAIK the medical name for the bone is stapes. Wocky (talk) 07:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Wilhelmina Will (talk · contribs) 06:06, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well-written:

The article is well-written and complies with policies on prose, structure, and grammar. Is it the end already? It felt like we were just getting started! (talk) 12:54, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation

Verifiable with no original research:

It always pleases me to see such a healthy collection of reliable published sources used by an article, especially when they're frequently cited in the text. Also, there is no evidence of original research in the article. Is it the end already? It felt like we were just getting started! (talk) 12:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(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)

(c) it contains no original research

Broad in its coverage:

The article seems to cover all relevant aspects of the topic, and does not incorporate anything which sounds trivial or unnecessary for inclusion. It's left me satisfactorily informed on the subject, I'll add! :) Is it the end already? It felt like we were just getting started! (talk) 12:50, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic

(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.

While this is, to begin with, not the sort of topic you would generally imagine someone having bias towards/against, I shall still make note that there is no evidence of this taking place, in the text. Is it the end already? It felt like we were just getting started! (talk) 12:49, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Going as far back as September 2011, nothing in the revision history suggests any edit warring. Is it the end already? It felt like we were just getting started! (talk) 16:59, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

The images used are all validly licensed, and do not violate fair use policies - if it even applied I don't think they'd be in Wikimedia Commons, as they are. Is it the end already? It felt like we were just getting started! (talk) 12:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

Holy kit and kaboodle, batman! Thanks for your prompt review. I was anticipating having more than a day between nominating and posting a GA nomination (it's been about 2-3 hours!), to iron out the cracks identified in the peer review. Additionally it is New Year's Eve, so I'd be very grateful if you could give me a few days to beautify the article! --LT910001 (talk) 06:13, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for holding off, Wilhelmina Will, I've addressed the PR concerns and the article is now ready for a review. --LT910001 (talk) 08:12, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem; we're good to go! :) Is it the end already? It felt like we were just getting started! (talk) 12:55, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New image

LT910001 What do you think of this image [1]? Its from 1918 and is thus not copyrighted. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 08:45, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This one is pretty ok as well [2]CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 08:47, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And lastly, an overview [3] CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 08:53, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]