Talk:Pudendal nerve/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Seppi333 (talk · contribs) 01:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

@CFCF: Just pinging you to let you know I've started to review this article. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 03:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• Seppi333Thanks for taking up the review. How's it going? --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:27, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

@CFCF & Tom (LT): My apologies for the very late reply/follow-up... I've been really really really busy outside wikipedia for the past few weeks. Other than that, things are fine. :) I'll finish this GA review over the next day or two and indicate any problems which need to be fixed, if any, at that time. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 03:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments

• Lead: the lead is very short. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done expanded. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:58, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• Refs: Overall I think the article is well-sourced. Most refs are MEDRS-quality and most of the content is cited. There are two statements I feel like should be referenced though since they're specific technical claims. These are:

1. In Imaging: "In rare cases, the nerve may be destroyed with either alcoholic or radiofrequency ablation."

 Done removed. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

1. In Nerve latency testing: "Prolonged motor latency can be an indicator of the extent of idiopathic or obstetric neurological damage, and can provide some indication regarding potential recovery or response to surgery."

 Done removed. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• In Structure:

• Is "each side" referring to each side of the perinium in the sentence "The pudendal nerve is a paired structure, with one on each side, termed the left and right pudendal nerves respectively"? I'd suggest specifying the structure it surrounds to for clarity.

 Done reworded --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what S5 refers to in a subsequent sentence: "Sometimes dorsal rami of the first sacral nerve contribute fibers to the pudendal nerve, and even more rarely S5."

 Not done Thanks for your observation. This refers to the fifth sacral nerve (which is wikilinked at the beginning of the sentence). I think that using this technical terminology in the 'variations' section of the anatomy article is probably acceptable. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Anyone not familiar with that contraction is going to be lost. I've supplied a template to make it readable to a layperson. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 01:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• In Function

• I'm not eniterely sure what the bolded phrase means in this context: "By providing sensation to the penis and the clitoris, the pudendal nerve is responsible for the afferent component of penile erection and clitoral erection."

 Not done This term is wikilink to explain it. What it means is that erection has two neural components, an afferent component that conveys the stimuli responsible for erection, and the efferent component which causes the penis/clitoris to become erect. The pudendal nerve is responsible for the afferent component. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Er... my bad; wasn't a misunderstanding of meaning/definition - just context. It slipped my mind that it innervated the penis/clitoris. I'm ok with this as is.

That's all I could really see that needs improvement after going through the article. I'll pass it once these are addressed. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 08:52, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
@CFCF and LT910001: Just letting you two know I finished my review; it just needs the above fixes and it passes as a GA. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 08:55, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll get to it shortly. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:17, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for taking up this review, Seppi333, I hope I've adequately addressed your concerns (and some more to boot -- expanded the lead and added a further citation). --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:58, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	Pending fixes	Pass
(b) (MoS)	The lead is rather short, but this is a rather brief article, so I'm just going to let this one go on that account. Easily passes other MOS criteria.	Pass

2. Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	Has reflist/passes MOS for it.	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	Most refs pass WP:MEDRS, minority have a minor meddate/primary issue, but are medical sources, so I'm passing this anyway.	Pass
(c) (original research)	Pending 2 refs.	Pass

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	Correctly sectioned w/ suitable coverage.	Pass
(b) (focused)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
No apparent bias from my first full read-through.	Pass

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

Notes	Result
Obviously	Pass

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

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	All PD lic.	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	All images outside infobox are adequately captioned	Pass

Result

Result	Notes
Pass	Passes as a GA.

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

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

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

2. Verifiable with no original research:

(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); and

(c) it contains no original research.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

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

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