Talk:Accessory nerve/GA1

GA Review

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

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

review

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, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; 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. 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).	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 or 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 media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All images are properly tagged with their license status. No non-free content found.
	6b. media 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

• I found a "citation needed" template in structure section, paragraph 1. Could someone fix it and then remove the template?
  •  Done --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
• 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.
  •  Done --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
• 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)