Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Anatomical terms of motion/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Crisco 1492 23:35, 27 May 2014 (UTC).

Anatomical terms of motion

 * Nominator(s): LT910001 (talk) 01:58, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because this is one of a series of Anatomical terminology lists that I would like to nominate. These articles are viewed by several hundred thousand people a year, and are one of the more important article's under the scope of WP:ANATOMY. I've tried very hard to make this readable and easily-understood, and would value not only any feedback on FL nomination but on how readily understood the article is, as I plan to nominate the other articles in the future. Kind regards, LT910001 (talk) 01:58, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments from PresN

 * Comments - wow, this made it pretty far down the page without a review. Here we go:
 * "They move organs, members, and the whole body in specific ways described by anatomical terminology. The terminology describes movement according to its direction." - choppy, consider combining.
 * "describing movements such as those of the hands, feet, and eyes" - "describing certain movements such as", or just "describing movements of the hands etc."
 * The lead is very, very short - since you're using summary style, I'd prefer to see a little more summary here.
 * ✅ Fleshed out and revised. --LT910001 (talk) 04:48, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * "The study of movement is known as Kinesiology" - uncapitalize kinesiology.
 * ✅ --LT910001 (talk) 02:21, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * "Such prefixes are common in Medical terminology" - uncapitalize medical
 * ✅ --LT910001 (talk) 02:21, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * "For example, when depressing an car pedal or standing on the tiptoes." - not a complete sentence
 * Can you clarify why this isn't complete sentence? --LT910001 (talk) 02:21, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Everything after "when" is a prepositional phrase, so you're left with nothing but a dependent clause. I've adjusted it.
 * "A Version is an eye movement" - uncapitalize version or remove the A.
 * ✅ --LT910001 (talk) 02:21, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * "This word is derived from "to nod".(Latin: Nutare)" - space before the (
 * ✅ --LT910001 (talk) 02:21, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Though it's also a bit odd that that latin root is in the main text, when the others are in notes.
 * ✅ --LT910001 (talk) 02:21, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * References
 * Sometimes you capitalize chapter names in book references (4-9, 14, 26, 34) and sometimes you don't, from the same book. Unless the books are inconsistent, you shouldn't be.
 * ✅ standardised in title case. --LT910001 (talk) 04:27, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * In several cases you have a space between the punctuation mark and the reference; you shouldn't. (13, 14, 16, 18, etc.)
 * ✅ I am most familiar with APA style, where there is a space, and I think this makes an article more editable and visually appealing, so I've standardised all citations with a space. --LT910001 (talk) 04:34, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Ref 1 looks like it's just citing the last of three statements; if it's covering all three you should have it before the list like ref 2, if it's not, then you need more citations there.
 * Sorry, I'm not too clear on this. Could you clarify which area you're referring to? --LT910001 (talk) 04:34, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I wasn't clear at all here. In "Classifications of motion", you twice have a list-starter-colon followed by bullet points; in the second instance you put a reference right after the colon, so it presumably stands for both bullet points, but in the first instance you put the reference after the third bullet point, leaving it ambiguous as to whether it is meant to stand for the first two bullet points as well. Presumably, you should move it (reference 1, use b) up after the colon. -- Pres N  18:37, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Reference 25 is the only one where you put the whole book in it, which would be fine I guess except you don't have a chapter/page number
 * ✅ replaced with a better citation. --LT910001 (talk) 04:27, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Fix the title capitalization and spacing in citations 3, 4, and 6
 * ✅ --LT910001 (talk) 04:34, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I take it back, you flip to firstname lastname in citation 5 as well
 * ✅ standardised. --LT910001 (talk) 04:27, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure that's not how you do lastname, firstname with a PhD (citation 9)
 * ✅ fixed. --LT910001 (talk) 04:27, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * -- Pres N  17:58, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Pinging in case you didn't have this watchlisted. -- Pres  N  19:04, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this ping and initiating the review. I've sorry, I am busy in real life and will make the appropriate changes & respond on the weekend. Kind regards, --LT910001 (talk) 04:06, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking on this review, I am making the changes now. I will be working on the references and lead shortly (I've grouped your comments about the references so I can more easily address them). --LT910001 (talk) 02:21, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Ping to . Thanks for taking up this review, I've tried to respond to all your requests and would invite you to have another look. Kind regards, --LT910001 (talk) 04:48, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Citation 2 is a mess - it seems you're doing "name, job", so you need to a) put a semicolon between positions, b) keep the job title capitalization consistent, c) fix the ". /copy", d) you abruptly shift into name job at the end, e) Willert has no first name, and f) this is the only citation that you don't have as lastname, firstname
 * I myself am still a little confused on this. I'd be very grateful if you could point me somewhere that tells me how to get this right, or fix this. I'd like to get this fixed and have tried but it may need some work.--LT910001 (talk) 04:34, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think your use case is just too complicated to try to use the last, first fields; I've instead moved it all into the "author" field, which allows whatever free text you want. -- Pres N  18:37, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm still not entirely sure how to format this citation - for example, I don't think it's standard to note the role of editors, nor to provide the proofreaders and illustrators. Should I remove these, and leave only the list of editors in the order they were given, without noting their status? --LT910001 (talk) 00:17, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you can go either way, but I do agree that it would be more standard to just put the editors' names (and probably not the assistant editors) into the "editors" field. (or alternately, split them all into editor1-last/editor1-first, etc.) -- Pres N  00:06, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Support - there's a point outstanding, but I'm comfortable supporting now since it's just moving a reference around. -- Pres N  18:37, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Dudley Miles
Comments Support. This is a good article and I found the definitions generally clear. My queries are mainly on prose.


 * "Many anatomical terms derive from Latin terms of the same name." This sounds odd. I think "with the same meaning" would be better.
 * ✅ Agree - changed to "with the same meaning"--LT910001 (talk) 00:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * "Motions can be split into three categories as per how they engage different joints of the body:" "as per how" is colloquial. I think "depending on how" is preferable.
 * ✅ I've clarified this sentence. --LT910001 (talk) 00:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * "This puts increased stress on the ligaments of the joint, and need not always be a voluntary movement, but may occur as part of accidents, falls, or other causes of trauma." Not quite sure here, but would "as a result of" be better than "as part of"?
 * ✅ I've clarified and slightly reworded this --LT910001 (talk) 00:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * "These terms come from the Latin words of the same meaning." As above, I think this should be "with the same meaning". (There are several case of this.)
 * ✅ per above.


 * "For example, a Roman salute, in which the arm is placed against the chest, is an example of internal rotation." The article on the Roman salute describes it as like a Nazi salute, with the arm held out, not against the chest.
 * ✅ thanks for pointing this out, seems like the Roman Salute in my mind may not have been entirely historically accurate :P. I have changed this to hand on heart gesture. --LT910001 (talk) 00:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * "Nutation and counternutation [d] refer to movement of the sacrum defined by the rotation of the promontory " There seems to be some confusion here (in the sacrum article, not this one). Trying to find the meaning of the terms, I found that clicking on promontory links to sacrum, and the link on promontory in the sacrum article is circular and goes back to sacrum.
 * ✅ Thanks for pointing this out, although it's not technically part of this review I've slightly altered the sacrum article to resolve this... the garden of Anatomy articles is rather untended. Feel free to point any additional problems out at WT:ANATOMY in the future. --LT910001 (talk) 00:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Dudley Miles (talk) 21:57, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Is there a reason the dictionaries are formatted differently from the other sources, with the date in a different place?
 * ✅ Initially I wasn't sure how to cite this, but I've added the names of the editors like the other books. --LT910001 (talk) 00:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments,. I've tried to address your concerns. --LT910001 (talk) 00:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Oppose Support from SchroCat
I've made a number of basic changes to this: removing the spaces before refs, moving pp. to p. for single pages in the citations etc.


 * "Motion, or the process of movement": the first two links in the opening line both point to disambig pages
 * ✅ Redirected one, and removed the other. --LT910001 (talk) 05:09, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Of greatest concern, there are a number of paragraphs or sentences that do not carry citations. As a general rule of thumb, each para needs to end with a citation. Thus, in the first para of the Classifications of motion section, the following is not supported by any sources:
 * "Additionally, motion may be divided into gross motion, affecting the large joints (such as legs, arms, and torso), and fine movements, which describe those made by the fingers, toes, feet or wrist. The study of movement is known as kinesiology, and a categoric list of movements of the human body and the muscles involved can be found at list of movements of the human body."
 * This happens throughout the page, leaving many statements unsupported. - SchroCat (talk) 10:07, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I'll address this shortly. --LT910001 (talk) 10:40, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay. I will address your comments today or remove the offending statements. --LT910001 (talk) 21:33, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ --LT910001 (talk) 05:27, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments, . I wasn't sure whether these statements were one of the types (direct quotes, bibliographic information, contentious statements likely to be challenged), but I have erred on the side of caution and cited them all. I've also standardised the phraseology ("For example, ..."). Because this is Anatomy, many of the sources have labelled pictures, so I am often describing what is in the image, or providing an analagous situation. --LT910001 (talk) 05:09, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. I've made a couple more tiny formatting tweaks, largely in the sources section: now happy to support. - SchroCat (talk) 15:24, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Brilliant! Thanks. --LT910001 (talk) 21:39, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Conclusion
Thanks to all the users for their comments. It's now two and a half months since nomination, and three users have voiced their support, with none opposing. Is there a way to conclude this review? --LT910001 (talk) 21:39, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I was planning on doing it after coming home from my trip, but I can fit this in now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:33, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delegate's Comment - This list has been promoted. There may be a delay waiting for the bot to close the nomination. Please do not edit the article history template or remove the FLC template; the bot will do that automatically. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:33, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it's been 5 days now. Is it usual to have a delay of this length? --LT910001 (talk) 11:59, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm... I'll check to see if the bot has been active. This is not the only delayed nom, sadly. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:24, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * So... how's it going, ? Perhaps this can be done manually? --LT910001 (talk) 03:04, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks like the bot is being silly again. I have RL work to do, but perhaps Hahc21 has the time? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:39, 13 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.