Talk:Interventricular foramina (neuroanatomy)

GA Review

Completed GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Interventricular foramina (neuroanatomy)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review. Reviewer: Seppi333 (talk · contribs) 05:02, 9 November 2017 (UTC) Discussion @Tom (LT): I thought I had been waiting a long time for a GA review, but I noticed this article was nominated for GA a month prior to mine; since you've already waited a lifetime, I'm taking on the review for this article. I'll provide some comments after my first-pass reading within the next few hours. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 05:02, 9 November 2017 (UTC) Many thanks, Seppi333. Time waiting until GA reviews are completely unpredictable. I really appreciate you picking up this review :), but am sorry to say I do not think I would have enough time to counter-review your article that's been waiting to give it the attention it deserves (sorry!) --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:05, 12 November 2017 (UTC) Haha, no worries. I didn't take on this review with the expectation of a quid pro quo review; I just know how annoying it is to have to wait forever for a review. I actually don't expect anyone to take on the GA review for the HMB article before I renominate it for FA again (and withdraw the GA nomination) in a few months. I just nominated it in the unlikely event that someone was willing to review its compliance with the GA criteria. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 02:41, 12 November 2017 (UTC) Initial comments on prose In the lead, the sentence "They also contain choroid plexus, a specialized CSF-producing structure, that is continuous with that of the lateral and third ventricles, and which is also present in the fourth ventricle." seems a bit awkwardly worded. I think it would be more straightforward to say "The walls of the interventricular foramina contain choroid plexus choroid plexus, a specialized CSF-producing structure that is located along the length of the lateral and third ventricles, and which is also present in the fourth ventricle." (note: I copied the first part of this sentence from Interventricular foramina (neuroanatomy)#Function), provided that this is an accurate statement. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 23:22, 10 November 2017 (UTC)  Done improved. The last part about the fourth ventricle doesn't really belong on this article. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:05, 12 November 2017 (UTC) In "Structure", the phrase connect the lateral ventricles on the left and the right to the third ventricle seems unclear to me. What are "left" and "right" in reference to in this sentence? Or, to rephrase that, I'm basically asking "on the left and the right of what?" I assume it's referring to the left/right sides of the head/brain, but that should probably be clarified. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 23:22, 10 November 2017 (UTC)  Done clarified. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:05, 12 November 2017 (UTC) In "Function", shouldn't the sentence — End branches of the medial posterior choroidal arteries, superior thalamostriate, superior choroidal and septal veins also pass through the foramen. – be placed in the "Structure" section? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 23:22, 10 November 2017 (UTC)  Not done I can see your point here, but I often include things like this in the function section as, in a sense, the one function of the foramen could be said as a hole through which vessels pass. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:05, 12 November 2017 (UTC) Good point, that's fine with me. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 02:32, 12 November 2017 (UTC) In "History", in the quote ""... an oval hole, large enough to admit a goose quill, under forepart of the fornix. From this hole, a probe can be readily passed into the other lateral ventricle, shewing [sic], i the first place that the two lateral ventricles communicate with each other"[8] is "i the first place" a typo from the source or a typo in the article? I assume that should read "in the first place". Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 23:22, 10 November 2017 (UTC)  Done --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:05, 12 November 2017 (UTC) Update: Alright, with these changes, I'm satisfied with the prose; I'm giving this article a pass on the prose criterion. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 02:32, 12 November 2017 (UTC) Comments on article citations and breadth of coverage I'll probably review the cited sources in the article and check for other sources for the breadth criterion today or tomorrow. Those are the last 2 things I'd need to check before upgrading the article's rating to GA. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 02:32, 12 November 2017 (UTC) Itemized review of the GA criteria 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. I'm satisfied with the changes that resulted from the discussion above and the ones that I made yesterday. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 02:32, 12 November 2017 (UTC) 1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Clearly. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 02:32, 12 November 2017 (UTC) 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. Clearly. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 02:32, 12 November 2017 (UTC) 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). Every statement is cited to a reliable anatomical or medical source. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 23:41, 12 November 2017 (UTC) 2c. it contains no original research. Checked the article against refs 3 and 7 (constituting 25% of the cited sources). There's no un-cited OR (see my comment on criterion 2b) or WP:SYNTH from these refs. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 23:41, 12 November 2017 (UTC) 2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. Earwig's Copyvio Detector permalink – maximum is 0.0% confidence. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 02:32, 12 November 2017 (UTC) 3. Broad in its coverage: 3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. The overall structure of an anatomy article is typically just "Structure", "Function", "Clinical significance", and "History"; given that all of those aspects of this topic were covered, I'm giving this article a pass for this criterion. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 23:44, 12 November 2017 (UTC) 3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Clearly. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 02:32, 12 November 2017 (UTC) 4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Clearly. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 02:32, 12 November 2017 (UTC) 5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Clearly. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 02:32, 12 November 2017 (UTC) 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. Checked the image copyright statuses manually – they all have compliant licenses. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 02:32, 12 November 2017 (UTC) 6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Clearly. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 02:32, 12 November 2017 (UTC) 7. Overall assessment. This is clearly a good article on the basis of the GA criteria. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 23:44, 12 November 2017 (UTC)