Talk:Ear/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Saskoiler (talk · contribs) 05:21, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

It's my pleasure to take on a GA review of this article. I will assess one criterion at a time, capturing the assessment in the table which follows. After the table, I'll list items which I believe need attention, if any. -- Saskoiler (talk) 05:21, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

@Saskoiler thanks very much for your thorough review, I will try to respond point by point below and appreciate the effort you've put into it. Unfortunately I can only really do this justice by starting in a few days time, but rest assured I will be on the case. Sorry about this! --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:32, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

No problem at all. There's no rush. It took me a long time just to get through my first review. I look forward to seeing your updates as time allows. (I see that you've begun already!) Saskoiler (talk) 01:38, 19 March 2016 (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.	Overall, the prose is at a good level. For a complex topic, most concepts have been communicated with good clarity. However, I have numerous questions and suggestions for improving the prose. See below: "Prose" (Note: These have been addressed.)
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lead - I like much of the structure of the lead, but I think it can be improved to more closely summarize the various article sections. See below: "Lead" (Note: These have been addressed.) Layout - The organization of body elements is good. The flow from section to section is pretty good. There is good use of "Main article: ___" links. I do have a few questions, however. See below: "External links" and "See also" (Note: These have now been addressed. Thank you.) Words to watch - No issues discovered. Fiction - n/a List incorporation - n/a
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.	There is a "References" section which contains a list of 64 sources supporting inline citations.
	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).	I have checked all of the citations for which links to source text have been provided. I confirmed that all of these support the article claims. Sources are reliable, including many textbooks, scientific and medical journal articles, and other books.
	2c. it contains no original research.	I see no evidence of original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	There are no copyright violations that I can see. The copyvio tool shows no problems.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The main aspects of this topic—structure, function, development, clinical significance, society and culture—are addressed by this article. The sections and subsections appear well-planned and clear. However, my confusion is that the distinction between "ear" vs "human ear" is pretty blurry. Because of this, the scope lines of this article are a bit vague. Therefore, I'm not certain if there are gaps of missing information in several sections. See below: "Ear vs Human ear" (Note: The discussion below has resolved the issue. Thank you.)
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	There's a good level of detail in this article, and it achieves fairly good balance. The article makes good use of summary style, and refers off to dedicated articles on sub-topics several times.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	The article shows no sign of editorial bias.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	The article is stable. I see no evidence of an edit war or content dispute... just a steady series of productive edits.
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 tagged with their copyright status, and there are no apparent licensing issues.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	All images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. The various diagrams are of particularly high quality. The image chosen for the top-left of the article is simple and inviting. Although the article passes the image criteria as-is, I think there is room for future improvements here. In particular, I think the "Society and culture" could be augmented with a set of images. Also, the "Other animals" section could be enhanced greatly by having a gallery of images showing the many variations of ears.
	7. Overall assessment.	I enjoyed reviewing this article, and I learned a great deal about the ear in the process. Thank you to all contributors of this article. There are quite a few items to address or discuss below, so I will delay making a final assessment at this time. Hopefully, the issues are not too difficult to address. Update: After many iterations, all issues below have been addressed. I believe that this article now meets the GA criteria, and I am passing this review. Congratulations. I hope that improvements will continue to be made to this article, perhaps someday approaching featured article quality. Future improvements might include: Further streamlining of content, particular between the "Structure" and "Function" sections where there's still a bit of content overlap in prose. Further copyediting in line with Manual of Style (beyond that required to meet GA criteria). Extending the "Society and Culture" section. I think there's fertile ground here for making this section even more comprehensive. In particular, I suspect there is more to be said about ears in art and in folklore (not just pointed ears, but other kinds as well). Ears as erogenous zones might also be a minor topic to address. Extending the "Other animals" section. I think further analysis may turn up other perspectives to round out this section. As well, I think additional photographs would enhance this section to show the range of sizes/shapes. Clean up citation formats to be more consistent.

Items to Address

The following is a list of items which need attention. Please respond to each to let me know when it is resolved, or enter an explanation to justify why it should not be changed.

External links

Addressed - Confirmed

"Details of various ear problems" and "Radiology of the Ear Canal" appear to be dead links. If these are necessary, perhaps a new URL or archived URL can be located? If not, perhaps they should be removed?  Done I've removed all the links. The two dead ones because they are dead, and the two others because I do not think they add materially to the reading experience. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC) Confirmed. I agree that these rather random links were not really necessary. Saskoiler (talk) 04:03, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

See also

Addressed - Confirmed

This is quite a large number of articles, and I'm not sure this is optimal. I would be tempted to remove those which are entirely related to sound only (Pitch (music), Timbre, etc.). Others?  Done I have removed ones which relate only to Hearing. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC) I would also be tempted to incorporate several others into the appropriate body section. For example, should Cochlear implant be mentioned (and linked) in the "Deafness" section?  Doing... I will add this.  Done --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:19, 21 March 2016 (UTC) As another example, should absolute threshold of hearing be incorporated into the final paragraph of the "Hearing" section?  Not done this can be mentioned on the Hearing article. I've removed it from the list --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC) Should health effects from noise be incorporated into the "Injury/inner ear" section? Others?  Done Rationalised. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:19, 21 March 2016 (UTC) I agree with the changes. Saskoiler (talk) 04:03, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Ear vs Human Ear

Addressed - Confirmed

Some other anatomical articles are split into "part" and "human part" articles. For example, Nose vs Human nose; Eye vs Human eye; Brain vs Human brain; Skin vs Human skin; Tooth vs Human tooth. I'm not suggesting a split of this article (that would be for someone who understands the similarities/differences much better than I), but I do sense some "tension" in this article at times as it seems to drift into "human ear" mode quite a bit. If this is really a human ear article, then I wonder why we're specifying "human" so many times. Similarly, perhaps all mention of other animals should be restricted to the "Other animals" section? For example, consider auricle (human term, used 11 times) vs pinna (animal term, used 12 times). Switching back and forth is confusing to me. Three times, both terms are given, including twice in the lead. The two uses in the lead use alternate order, which is somewhat confusing. In "Society and culture", we have "... when no pinna is formed (atresia), ... reconstruction of the auricle is possible." I don't understand why both forms are used in this sentence. Is it possible to choose one term to use throughout the article, perhaps along with a note on first usage that "pinna" and "auricle" are synonyms? Incidentally, the Outer ear article seems to have the same issue.  Done confusing to me too. Auricle is the latinate term used in human anatomy, and pinna the standard "preferred english synonym". I've boldly standardised to pinna. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC) Changes look good to me. Saskoiler (talk) 04:18, 22 March 2016 (UTC) In many cases, we emphasize humans nearly at the exclusion of all other animals: In the "Structure" section, we begin "The human ear consists of three parts..." Is it the same for ears of other animals? If so, why do we limit this statement to humans? If not, can we say something about the structure of non-human ears? (The lead makes the same statement, but for mammals.) See below. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:37, 20 March 2016 (UTC) In the "Hearing" subsection, we give a frequency range for humans, but give no representative sample for other animals. I don't know the number but I imagine this would be different for each species based on ear size, shape and placement. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:37, 20 March 2016 (UTC) Indeed, it would be different for every species. I was just suggesting a representative sample. I'm okay with leaving it as-is, however, particularly because the linked section in the "Sound" article describes this variability adequately. Saskoiler (talk) 04:18, 22 March 2016 (UTC) In the "Development" and "Clinical significance" sections, we don't specify "humans", but that seems to be the exclusive focus. Can we say anything about other animals here? (Or should we?) See below - we can in the 'other animals section. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:37, 20 March 2016 (UTC) In the "Other animals" section, we continue to mention humans (twice). For the purposes of comparison. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:37, 20 March 2016 (UTC) Mammals are the only other group mentioned several times. Is this article really "Mammalian ear"? (Note: We do have a Mammalian eye) I'm not sure the "Invertebrates" section belongs in this article at all. According to that text, "only vertebrate animals have ears". Since this is an article about ears (as distinct from Hearing or Auditory system), it seems like we shouldn't be discussing animals without ears. Is that reasonable?  Not done I think it's reasonable to include a small section on analogues in other species, if only for interest. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:37, 20 March 2016 (UTC) Okay. The section is growing on me. Saskoiler (talk) 04:18, 22 March 2016 (UTC) Focusing an article on humans is standard practice for anatomy articles. We have about 5,200 articles on anatomy on Wikipedia, about 20 of which have "Human" subarticles. We generally do this when there is enough content to justify splitting. Humans get primary focus for a number of reasons: There is more information about humans on wikipedia, and in general articles such as ear and lung get edited by human-centric editors such as myself. More sources are available (eg textbooks, books on disease) Most articles that we wikilink are named human anatomical features or articles about human anatomy Readers can be assumed to be thinking primarily about humans for some sections - eg disease and function It is easier to follow than an article that compares and contrasts different animal species in the main article section This is not an optimal state of affairs but it is the way that it has worked thus far. It would be next to impossible to cover in the same depth animal anatomy. For that reason we generally have a main section to do with humans, and then an "Other animals" section on other animals, with "Other" implying non-human. Perhaps in the future this section will be expanded. As it is this is part of the current manual of style entry for this: WP:MEDMOS#Anatomy. I hope this reply helps. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:37, 20 March 2016 (UTC) Your arguments are reasonable. The 20/5200 fraction is particularly compelling. I'm convinced. Saskoiler (talk) 04:18, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Lead

Addressed - Confirmed

I find the first sentence awkward (especially the part in italics): "The ear is the organ of the sense of hearing, and in mammals is also an organ of balance." Would something like this be better? "The ear is an organ which enables the senses of hearing and, in mammals, balance." Or how about "The ear is an organ in the auditory system (hearing) and, in mammals, the vestibular system (balance). (Or, the first sentence could focus exclusively on hearing, and the balance item could be left for a future sentence?)  Done have trimmed some fat from the sentence --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC) I think the first sentence of the last paragraph ("Although the entire organ... the visible outer part.") could be cut. This is not an essential detail that needs to be in the lead, and it is already described with better clarity in the "Outer ear" section.  Done I agree this was poorly worded --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC) The first paragraph summarizes both "structure" (outer, middle, inner) and "function" (hearing, balance). The fourth paragraph also addresses both structure (flap of tissue, symmetric placement) and function (sound localization). I recommend that the fourth paragraph be merged into the first, with duplicate details (e.g. "auricle or pinna", "pinna (or auricle in humans)" combined.  Done The second paragraph acts as a summary for the "development" section. Good. As a single sentence, it seems rather lonely. Would it make sense to choose one or two additional key details from that section to add to the lead? The third paragraph mentions tinnitus, but this is not mentioned in the article.  Done have added a paragraph copied from the respective article. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:19, 21 March 2016 (UTC) The third paragraph doesn't mention injury at all, even though this comprises about half the text in the "clinical significance" section. Mentions it briefly. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:19, 21 March 2016 (UTC) The lead does not summarize anything from "Society and culture". Should it? (I vote yes.)  Done Briefly summarised. I'm not sure that the rest of the details (maybe a historical note) deserve placement in the lead. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:19, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Prose

• General

Addressed - Confirmed

I think it would be very beneficial to grammatically handle "synonyms" in a single, consistent way throughout the article. With so much variation, it's a little confusing at times. Right now, we have the following cases: "... the auricle or pinna..." — ("or", with no punctuation) "pinna (or auricle in humans)" — ("or", with parentheses) "eardrum (tympanic membrane)" — (parentheses by themselves) "eardrum (also known as the tympanic membrane)" — (parentheses, with "also known as")  Done I have tried to standarise this --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC) Spelling inconsistency: "... aids sound localization" vs " ... for the localisation of sound ..." vs "...help localize the direction"  Done many thanks, this is always a difficult one because we have so many editors :). --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC) We still have a consistency problem with eardrum and tympanic membrane. (1) "eardrum" → okay (2) "eardrum (also called the tympanic membrane)" → I like this one, particularly how it is used in the same sentence where we have "pinna (also called the auricle)" (3) "tympanic membrane or eardrum" → Why? Do we need this variant? Could we just replace with "eardrum"? (4) "tympanic membrane (eardrum)" → Ditto. Do we need this variant? Could we just replace with "eardrum"? (5) "tympanic membrane" (by itself, several times) → Ditto. Do we need this variant? Could we just replace with "eardrum"? I think if we centralized on just "eardrum" (other than the single case where we provide the alternate term), the article would be clearer... unless there's some technical reason not to.  Done great point - I've standardised to 'eardrum'. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:26, 23 March 2016 (UTC) (Note: there is a case of "secondary tympanic membrane" which needs to be left as-is, I think. It's odd that it is not wikilinked as a full phrase, but it is wikilinked as simply "membrane" later in that sentence.)

• Lead

Addressed - Confirmed

Re: "The inner ear consists of..." Are there three items being listed in this sentence: (1) bony labyrinth (2) vestibular system parts (3) auditory system part? Or are there two items being listed (1) vestibular system parts, including the bony labyrinth (2) auditory system parts? I think we need some copyediting/punctuation to help clarify this as it is ambiguous.  Done --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:21, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• Structure

Addressed - Confirmed

Are these 4 paragraphs necessary? Many of the facts mentioned here repeat details located in the following three subsections (Outer ear, middle ear, and inner ear). For example, "... and is connected to the throat at the nasopharynx, via the pharyngeal opening of the Eustachian tube." (in "Structure") vs "The middle ear also connects to the upper throat at the nasopharynx via the pharyngeal opening of the Eustachian tube." (in "middle ear") I would be tempted to delete the redundant details, and move other facts into one of the three subsections. This would leave only the simple first sentence as an introduction to this section.  Done? I've simplified and concatenated these. I prefer a summaried layout where wear part is a summary of parts below in stucture. That way a reader can understand the bigger picture without being overcome by the large amount of details. But I do see what you mean and have tried to trim it here. What do you think now? --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

• Structure - Outer Ear

Addressed - Confirmed

Re: "The ear muscles are supplied by the facial nerve, which also supplies sensation to the skin of the ear itself, as well as to the external ear cavity." I can understand how a nerve supplies senstation, but how does a nerve supply a muscle? The first part of the sentence is confusing to me.  Not done a skeletal muscle moves because of a nervous signal sent from the brain. The signal travels along a nerve, so such muscles are also said to have a nerve supply. Sensation can also travel back from a nerve to the brain. Some nerves have both functions - a command function and a receptive sensory function. Hence this sentence does make sense. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:19, 21 March 2016 (UTC) Re: "The symmetrical arrangement of the ears ... via pathways to both ears." These two sentences indirectly say that we have two ears, but does this need to be stated directly? This might be obvious for humans, but who knows about other animals?  Done Moved location. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

• Structure - Middle ear

Addressed - Confirmed

Re: "The three ossicles transmit sound from the tympanic membrane to the secondary tympanic membrane which is situated within the round window to the inner ear." I get confused near the end of the sentence. What does "to the inner ear" refer to? Is it referring to the sound that gets transmitted there? Or is it describing the round window location? I think it needs some rewording to be clear.  Done --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:21, 20 March 2016 (UTC) Re: "The footplate of the stapes bone connects ... which causes movement of the stapes." Can this be made clearer?  Done --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:21, 20 March 2016 (UTC) The second paragraph of this section overlaps quite a bit with the second paragraph of the "Hearing" section. Would it make sense to move the "hearing"-specific information out of this "structure" section?  Done --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:21, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• Structure - Inner ear

Addressed - Confirmed

"The bony labyrinth refers to a bone matrix..." → Would this be better as "The bony labyrinth is a bone matrix..."? "... which opens externally into the oval window..." What does "opens externally into" mean? Can this be rephrased to be clearer?  Done --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:21, 20 March 2016 (UTC) I see the changes made to the first paragraph of "Inner ear", but the first sentence of the second paragraph appears to be unchanged. It still contains the two phrases that are confusing me: "The bony labyrinth refers to a bone matrix..." and "... which opens externally into the oval window..." In the new text at the start of this section, there is the word "rescessions". Should this be "recessess"?  Done reworded --Tom (LT) (talk) 02:54, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

• Structure - Blood supply

Addressed - Confirmed
"mastoid branch of the occipital or posterior auricular arteries" Should the "or" be changed to "and"? My gut says the correct word is "and" in that sentence.  Done blood supply arises from either these. I've clarified this by adding 'either'. --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:02, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Question.

Addressed - Confirmed

I have arbitrarily decided not to include too much detail on the structure or function of the inner ear (ie the semicircular canals and the cochlea) because it is quite complex. In your opinion, is it worth expanding on this area? --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:17, 22 March 2016 (UTC) I think the current level of detail on the inner ear is appropriate. Additional detail can be given (and is given!) in the depth articles linked from this one. For future improvements of this article (after the GA review), I would personally look to bolster the "society and culture" section first. The current content is very interesting, and it feels like there's more to be said on that sub-topic. For instance, I want to know more about round ears in folklore, and droopy ears, and... My second target would probably be "other animals". But, for now, I think the level of detail is just about right all around. :-) Saskoiler (talk) 04:33, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

• Function - Hearing

Addressed - Confirmed

In general, I really like the prose in this section. There's lots of short, easy-to-digest sentences that make the article more accessible for the average reader. Thanks very much. It is very hard to convey a complex topic in a simple way whilst still conveying the details. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC) "The tensor tympani dampens noise, and the stapedius decreases the receptivity to high-frequency noise." I think there may be a factual error in the second half of that sentence. I think "frequency" is being confused with "amplitude" (or "intensity"). The former refers to the pitch, while the latter refers to the volume. Stapedius: "It prevents excess movement of the stapes, helping to control the amplitude of sound waves from the general external environment to the inner ear." (italicizing is mine) Acoustic reflex: "When presented with a high-intensity sound stimulus, the stapedius and tensor tympani muscles of the ossicles contract." So, I would replace two sentences "Two small muscles... high-frequency noise" with this single sentence: "Two small muscles, the tensor tympani and stapedius, attentuate high-intensity sounds via the acoustic reflex." Note that this would also allow acoustic reflex to be removed from the "See also" list.  Done clarified. --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:02, 22 March 2016 (UTC) "...causes receptor cells to become open to..." Is there a better phrase here than "to become open to"? The only one that comes to mind is "to become receptive to", but that may be slightly awkward too. Is it an improvement though?  Not done No, "open to" is correct here. The fluid goes into the cells, so it is incorrect to say it is "receptive to" as that conjures up images of cell receptors. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:21, 20 March 2016 (UTC) In the last paragraph of the section, the first and last sentences are both referencing sound frequencies so they should be brought closer together. (i.e. by moving the last sentence up to follow the first)  Done reworded --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:02, 22 March 2016 (UTC) Also, in the last paragraph, we talk about infrasound, but we don't mention ultrasound. I think we need to incorporate this for completeness and symmetry.  Done great point. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:21, 20 March 2016 (UTC) Function - Balance All looks okay.

• Development

Addressed - Confirmed

"Each structure originates..." Which structures are referred to here? I originally thought that the structures being referenced were "inner ear, middle ear, outer ear". But, then on reading the following sections, I think maybe the structures being referred to here are the (smaller) individual structures within (e.g. eardrum).  Done? I am not sure what you mean, so I presume this must have been changed since you started the review. --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:02, 22 March 2016 (UTC) Is this section specific to humans? Mammals? We should probably specify this in the opening paragraph. Alternately, the section name could be changed to "Human development" See above. --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:02, 22 March 2016 (UTC) Development - Inner ear "Each otic placode forms the otic vesicle." -- I think "the" should be changed to "an". Yes? Is that the intended meaning?  Done clarified. --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:02, 22 March 2016 (UTC) "A set of membranes ... and the tympanic duct." -- Should this sentence end with ", respectively." to be more specific about the relationships? Is that the right order?  Done clarified... I hope --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:02, 22 March 2016 (UTC) "A spiral ligament and a cartilaginous process called the modiolus..." -- I'm not sure what the correct phrasing is, but I think there's a grammatical flaw in this sentence. I think the modiolus is a "thing", not a "process".  Done reworded. In anatomy, a process is something that comes out of something else. --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:02, 22 March 2016 (UTC) "... connect and support the cochlear duct to the rest of the cartilaginous structures that surround it." -- I think "and support" should be cut, leaving "... connects the cochlear cut..."  Done clarified... I hope --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:02, 22 March 2016 (UTC) "The otic vesicle in turn forms the ..." -- I'm confused. Is there exactly one "otic vesicle" or more than one? If there's one, then this sentence is grammatically correct, and I may have been wrong about the earlier sentence. If there's more than one, then this sentence has a grammar problem.  Done clarified. --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:02, 22 March 2016 (UTC) "The structures of the inner part work..." -- Was that meant to say "of the inner ear work"? If not, then I'm confused about what "part" is referred to.  Done removed - best addressed in other sections. --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:02, 22 March 2016 (UTC) Development - Middle ear "...eustachian tube from the part next to it." -- I think the word "originates" needs to be here e.g. "tube originates from"  Done --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:02, 22 March 2016 (UTC) "The auditory ossicles ... first half of fetal life." -- I think some commas or words are missing here. Is this sentence a list of three items?  Done reworded --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:02, 22 March 2016 (UTC) "The mastoid process will appear as the tympanic cavity continues to grow." -- Is there a grammar problem here? Is it a "process" which "appears"?  Done removed, I do not think this is useful anyway for most readers. --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:02, 22 March 2016 (UTC) Development - Outer ear "The outer ears are firstly situated..." -- originally situated? (Or was some other meaning intended?)  Done --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:02, 22 March 2016 (UTC) "Once the outer ear is fully developed, it functions both..." -- Is the purpose of this sentence to say that the ear begins functioning within the womb? If so, then I think we need to explicitly say this. (I missed that meaning the first time I read it.) If not, then the sentence probably could be outright deleted since it doesn't pertain to development.  Done removed - best addressed in other sections. --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:02, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

• Clinical significance - Deafness - Congenital abnormalities

Addressed - Confirmed

"Atresia of the ear canal can occur..." -- Because atresia is the general term (and leads to a list article), should this sentence specify "aural atresia" instead? (And, I think that may be a typo on atresia page, because Microtia is used twice in that sentence.)  Done good catch. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:37, 20 March 2016 (UTC) "... if the ear canal does not channelize properly or if there is an obstruction." -- Should this be "does not develop proper channels"? I have renamed this section "Hearing loss" because it avoids the confusion associated with the lay term "deafness", relating to reversibility, magnitude or completeness of onset, and age of onset.--Tom (LT) (talk) 01:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

• Clinical significance - Injury - Outer ear

Addressed - Confirmed

"The external ear is frequently affected in frostbite, and owing to its exposed position can be affected by skin cancers including Squamous-cell carcinoma and Basal-cell carcinomas." -- Would this read better as "Owing to its exposed position, the external ear is susceptible to frostbite as well as skin cancers, including Squamous-cell carcinoma and Basal-cell carcinomas." ?  Done --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:37, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• Society and culture

Addressed - Confirmed

"The first surgery to reduce the projection of prominent ears was published in the medical literature by Ernst Dieffenbach in 1845 and the first case report in 1881." -- Is there an error in the dates? I'm confused by the latter part of the sentence "... and the first case report in 1881". Seems like a grammar problem?  Done added comma and wikilinked 'case report'. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:37, 20 March 2016 (UTC) "Based on technology developed in 1997 ... under the skin." -- Has this been done with humans? Seems like quite a leap to suggest that this can be done on humans without a citation to support it. I think we either need to rephrase it to say that it is "hypothetically possible" or "has been performed on a mouse", OR we need to find a citation. "Depending on the results of tests, ... rest of the ear." -- This sentence seems somewhat awkward, particularly near "with planning for". I have moved these to the 'clinical significance' section... and will clarify them shortly. --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:17, 22 March 2016 (UTC) Spliced this section, copyedited and sourced --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:26, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

• Other animals

Addressed - Confirmed

"An ear muscle that cannot move the ear, for whatever reason, has lost that biological function." -- Awkward. I'm not sure what that sentence is trying to say. What this sentence means is that the muscles don't function like muscles should, eg for moving things. That shows some similarity between different types of animals, some of which they move in, and others of which they don't --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:17, 22 March 2016 (UTC) I am also unsure about including a gallery of images. In my experience thus far it generally leads to lots and lots of images being accreting over time, and I'm not sure what real value it would add other than eg. look, elephants have big ears, horses have point ears, rabbits have fuzzy ears. Hmm, that said now I'm writing this it may be interesting. I'll give it a think. --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:17, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

• Citation errors
  • Somewhere along the way since this review began, two citation errors got introduced: #17 and #20.
    •  Done --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:26, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

-- Saskoiler (talk) 05:21, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

• • I look forward to working with you to get this promoted :). Thanks for taking up this review! --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:31, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I took the liberty to make a number of copyediting updates when I was fairly confident. Don't hesitate to revert one or more of my changes if I've botched things. -- Saskoiler (talk) 01:42, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks. I've grouped together issues that I feel are addressed and collapsed them so I can keep track of what I need to do. Please move bits out if you want to continue discussion. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:37, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I like the collapsing effect. Please continue to use it for sections which you feel have been addressed. I've glanced at a few of your changes, and it looks good so far. Saskoiler (talk) 16:18, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your thorough review, Saskoiler. I feel I have addressed your concerns, including the ones which have crept in :). Awaiting your reply, --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:26, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

You've made some great improvements throughout the article. I was able to check and confirm many sections this evening. I've got a couple more to go, and I need to give a final read to cover the various new sections (or significantly reworked/expanded sections). Due to prior commitments, it may take me a couple of days to get back to it. Saskoiler (talk) 05:10, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Not to worry, I'm happy to take a few days off too. --Tom (LT) (talk) 02:54, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I've now confirmed all sections. I performed a series of copyedits on my final read. I also removed one image (the Vacanti mouse) because my understanding is that the fair use claims are contingent on the image only being used on its own article. It's a good image, but a reader can easily click on the wikilink to find that article if desired. Saskoiler (talk) 04:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Hurray! Many thanks for your thorough and systematic review, Saskoiler. --Tom (LT) (talk) 04:45, 26 March 2016 (UTC)