Talk:Axillary arch

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:39, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Right, I'll take a look. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:39, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

The extent of the muscularisation of the arch is variable... - maybe make it more accessible like, "The proportion of muscle to fibrous tissue in the arch is variable..." or something?

 Done simplified --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

You have both "tendonous" and "tendinous" in the article...

 Done corrected --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Several human muscles are considered discrete muscles originally part of the panniculus carnosus.. - I think this needs a verb?

 Done simplified --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I have put in one tag. It'd be good if something could be added there as it is otherwise a one-sentence section. Surely there must be some discussion about it...

 Done --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:19, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

In the '"Structure section, it doesn't really tell the reader what shape it is.

 Done a very good point. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:19, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Some of the references are quite old, though this is not such an issue as with medical articles...

Thanks, these are good points. Small roadblock reached in that I do not have access to the sources, have requested on the resource exchange and hopefully by next weekend will have responded to your remaining concerns. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:35, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

@Casliber  Done I have given this article a thorough copyedit, simplified terms, and expanded it. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:19, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Ok, will look at it again soon. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:55, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

although one study has reported differences in strength and proprioception between those with and without the arch, differing also between men and women - reporting which group had better strength and proprioception, and exactly how men and women differed is important here.

 Done a difficult one, because the sample size is very small and I don't want to give WP:UNDUE attention, however there aren't any other (that I could find) actual functional studies of the axillary arch, so it is important to include some reference to the study. --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:21, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

1. Well written?:

Prose quality:

Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:

NB: Earwig's copyvio clear

Citations to reliable sources, where required:

No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects: see above.

Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

Overall:

Pass or Fail: - right, one question above, otherwise...I think it is ok. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:06, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

NB: It is not an issue for GA-hood, but it'd be good for the references to be formatted consistently. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:19, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done I have tried what citations I can but I have limited time to devote to this encyclopedia and will spend it editing other articles. Have changed some where I could (ie where doi and PMID exist)