Talk:Lung/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Dunkleosteus77 (talk · contribs) 20:49, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Dunkleosteus77
I don't think this is GA quality; prove me wrong. First off, scroll down to the references section and you'll see error messages. Second, I see three sections that are just bullet-point lists. All of them could easily be worked into a single paragraph.  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 20:49, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for taking up this review,. I and some other editors will try to respond to your review and correct anything that needs to be corrected to get the promotion :). --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:09, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

With regard to references, "garrrrrrrrr". I spend a lot of time making them quite neat but unfortunately in the to and fro of editing they often end up quite convoluted. I will get to fixing these over the next 1-2 days, I hope you can wait. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:09, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, these take way longer than two days. Anyways, I'll start reviewing the rest after the ref errors are fixed  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 02:11, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for waiting. I'm just waiting on getting hold of a physiology textbook and I should be set. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:17, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * @ ✅, please feel free to commence a more through review. I am ashamed to admit despite 21,000+ edits and 7+ good articles I still have a lot of trouble understanding technically how to make references format properly, so I apologise for that. Sometimes I wish Wikipedia were easier to edit. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * There are still ref error flags (mainly saying there's more than one first1= parameter)  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 23:36, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing this out. At the risk of sounding lazy I just don't have enough time to master reference formatting, although I am happy to address with any other reference concerns you have. Good articles are reviewed against six specific criteria here: WP:GA? There is no criteria that relates to the formatting of references - "Verifibility" is enough (that's #2). That criteria specifically states: "Using consistent formatting or including every element of the bibliographic material is not required". --Tom (LT) (talk) 19:58, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ I went through and fixed the ref errors, hopefully using an acceptable referencing format. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 23:22, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Tom (LT), are you using the built-in semi-automated citation template? If so, many of the errors I came across seemed to be caused simply by using the "first name" field rather than the "author" field for one-named authors (like Medline, here).  The field is displayed once you click the "Show/hide extra fields" button at the bottom of the window.  AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 22:16, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out! Actually I wasn't aware of that, but it will save me a lot of agony in the future. Thanks also for your help here. --Tom (LT) (talk) 20:10, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

With regard to bullet-point lists, I assume you are referring to these three sections: "Respiration", "Other", and "Microanatomy". I agree "Respiration" and "Other" may be better presented discursively and will give it a shot. Please feel free to note any other concerns below as you review the article against the good article criteria. I look forward to your continued comments, --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:09, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:17, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

General comments

 * Sorry but I'm a bit busy right now, and I won't be able to continue this review until Saturday (PST) or later. Sorry
 * That's OK! I look forward to your general comments. --Tom (LT) (talk) 20:16, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Remove sentences that say "read more about that in the section below/this article/etc."
 * Had a quick skim. To where do you point specifically? --Tom (LT) (talk) 11:18, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Take out template

at the bottom of the Respiratory System section
 * ✅ --Tom (LT) (talk) 11:18, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Use template undefined undefined when discussing units of measurement. For example, instead of saying "50 to 75 square meters", use template undefined undefined and replace it with 50 to 75 sqm where sqm is square meters (the unit the measurements are in) and sqft are sqaure feet (the units it's converting) . It should then read 50 to 75 sqm. If you want to use the abbreviation, add the parameter abbr=on
 * ✅ --Tom (LT) (talk) 11:18, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Do not italicize for effect, as done with "deoxygenated blood" in the Blood supply section
 * ✅ --Tom (LT) (talk) 11:18, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * In the Blood supply section, wikilink "venous blood"
 * ❌ This means blood that is in veins, ie. carrying some extra metabolites and less oxygen.--Tom (LT) (talk) 11:18, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Instead of saying "the left and right lungs" (as done in the Blood supply section), just say "the lungs"
 * Can't find where else we've said this other than in "Development" where I think it is useful to point out that the lung buds are left and right (as opposed to dorsal and ventral, see Pancrease). --Tom (LT) (talk) 11:18, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Just hit CTRL+F to find any line of text easily
 * ✅ have found two references as described above, both of which I think are warranted. No further changes made. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Only use bullet-points for long lists; remove the bullet-points in the Microanatomy section
 * ✅ I agree this enhances readability. --Tom (LT) (talk) 11:18, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I can't tell if this is written in American English or British English because I see "specialise" and "reorganized"
 * ❌ requesting this is beyond the purview of a good article review. --Tom (LT) (talk) 11:18, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * To comply with the spelling requirement, you must pick a dialect to write in (generally it's between American and British English)
 * ❌ as stated this is not required by the good article criteria, which state (WP:GA?): " Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.". --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, as per GA Criteria "the spelling and grammar are correct". You either misspelled "recognize" or "specialise", so pick a dialect (it's not too hard!)


 * Instead of wikilinking the name of the section, use template instead. For example, instead of wikilinking "breathing" in the Breathing section, add  to the top of the Breathing section.
 * ✅ --Tom (LT) (talk) 11:18, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * In the Protection section, wikilink "antoproteases"
 * ✅, good catch. --Tom (LT) (talk) 11:18, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Tom (LT), in the same line, what does the term "antioxidates" refer to? AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 10:45, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * When putting a ref after a punctuation point midway in a paragraph, you have to put a space between the ref and the following line of text. For example, change " The cat" to " The cat".
 * ✅ thanks, you are right and this does make it much more readable :). --Tom (LT) (talk) 11:21, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Unless it's for a list, treat semicolons as periods (so don't use "and" right after it).
 * ❌ I think our use of semicolons falls within standard English usage, including use in the case of complex lists, and use of the word "and" in the final clause, so I haven't made any changes. --Tom (LT) (talk) 11:21, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The semicolons with the word "and" after it is connecting the independent clause to the dependent clause instead of being used in a lengthy list. Replace these with commas (also do this for both semicolons in the first paragraph in the Gross anatomy section)
 * ❌ I do not agree with you, and at any rate this discussion is beyond the purview of a GA review. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This is definitely within the purview of GA review (must comply to rules of grammar)


 * In the Birds section, it says "On inspiration, air...". I don't think this is the correct way to use the word "inspiration"
 * ✅ this is the correct usage. However I realise we haven't actually stated that in the article, so I have added this sentence to the 'respiration' section: "Respiration is divided into 'inspiration, in which air is taken into the lungs, and expiration'', in which it is expelled from them." --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:34, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * In the Lungfish section, change "...curving round and above the..." to "...curving around and above the..."
 * ✅--Tom (LT) (talk) 22:34, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

For future purposes, when replying, start the sentence with a colon instead of two bullet points (**)

Completion of review
Hi @, would it be possible for you to identify the issues which are preventing this article from becoming a good article? I feel as stated above there has been some confusion between what would make this a better article, and what would make this a "good article" - as I've stated above there are only six criteria. A helpful essay to understand these is here: what the good article criteria are not. Unfortunately I work 80+ hours at the moment every second week, which makes it hard for me to reply unless in bursts of editing. If you'd be able to identify what issues (if any) are preventing this article becoming a GA, it will help me to respond and prioritise. If you are having trouble identifying these, it may be worth us asking for a second opinion so that a second set of eyes can help out. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:29, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * American/British English inconsistencies which is part of the spelling requirement  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 04:16, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Tom (LT) (talk) 04:53, 27 February 2016 (UTC)