Talk:Axillary arch/GA1

GA Review
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?
 * ✅ simplified --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You have both "tendonous" and "tendinous" in the article...
 * ✅ 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?
 * ✅ 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...
 * ✅ --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:19, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * In the '"Structure'' section, it doesn't really tell the reader what shape it is.
 * ✅ 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)
 * @ ✅ 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.
 * ✅ 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)
 * ❌ 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)