Talk:Cyclovergence

Question on rating
I just noticed the article has been rated as "Start-class", yet I do not quite see why it is not at least C-class. It does not seem to lack adequate reliable sources nor to be weak in wording or style. It also seems to have quite sufficient material on the topic for encyclopaedic purposes - or if not, please could it be specified here what is missing? --Chris Howard (talk) 11:19, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I am in the process of evaluating a stack of anatomy articles and came across this one, I have changed the rating back to C class. --LT910001 (talk) 11:40, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your quick reaction. It's the article's first rating, so it's important to get it right. I have given the article a further look to see whether there might be a basis for a yet higher rating, and have concluded that for the momenr some additional words about which specific muscles are involved would be helpful to round the article off. After that - in my view - a higher rating might be considered. Thanks again. --Chris Howard (talk) 12:03, 21 February 2014 (UTC)