Talk:Pudendal nerve/GA1

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

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

Discussion
Just pinging you to let you know I've started to review this article.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained) 03:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks 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.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained) 03:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * Lead: the lead is very short. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ 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:
 * In Imaging: "In rare cases, the nerve may be destroyed with either alcoholic or radiofrequency ablation."
 * ✅ removed. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 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."
 * ✅ 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.
 * ✅ 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."
 * ❌ 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.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; 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."
 * ❌ 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.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained) 08:52, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Just letting you two know I finished my review; it just needs the above fixes and it passes as a GA.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained) 08:55, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll get to it shortly. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:17, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅. Thanks for taking up this review,, 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
 :

:

:

.

. :



Criteria
 Good Article Status - Review Criteria   		A good article is&mdash;  <li>:</li>
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).

<li>:</li>
 * (a) ;
 * (b) ; and
 * (c).

<li>:</li>
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).

<li>.</li> <li>.</li> <li>:</li>
 * (a) ; and
 * (b).

</ol>