Wikipedia:Peer review/Anatomical terms of motion/archive1

Anatomical terms of motion
This peer review discussion has been closed. Having had some good experiences with PR in the past, would like to request a PR review for this article, and how ready it is for a GA nomination. I know there are some existing problems (eg incompletely sourced), so I would particularly value commentary on the article's readability and content. That said, any and all comments are welcome! Thanks, LT910001 (talk) 13:36, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Ping to, who has recently been involved in editing this article with me.

Comments from Chris Howard
I have now read through your article and, contrary to my initial intentions, prefer to give you feedback here on your discussion page rather than there. First of all, I wish to express my respect for picking up such an extensive and nontrivial subject to bring it to GA. I have only a few thoughts as feedback for the moment.
 * One is that the expression "medial and abduction stage" is not necessarily understandable to the general reader:
 * ✅ reworded
 * in particular the term "abduction" is not explained, and in fact the link "Abduction" in this article's section "Abduction and adduction" currently redirects to a deleted article and then after a second or so automatically redirects further to a not-so-helpful Wiktionary page.
 * It would be good if this were solved differently (for example, redirecting Abduction to List of abductors of the human body that has a concise definition of the term); similarly for "Adduction" which might preferably redirect to List of adductors of the human body). * Secondly, I was wondering whether you would want to include information on anatomical motion of the eyes (see Eye muscles), but of course that is quie an extensive subject on its own. I hope these two rather informal suggestions/thoughts may help you move further. Regards --Chris Howard (talk) 18:30, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks for your comments, . We had overlooked Eye movement-related terminology but I will definitely add a section to the article. Update: added a reference. --LT910001 (talk) 03:41, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments from CF

 * I've looked over the article a little but, but I don't feel I can conduct a review as I was part of the creation. But as a suggestion maybe the following could be merged:

-- CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 10:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Sagital plane
 * Coronal plane
 * Transverse plane
 * Anatomical planes
 * Also found Human positions, don't know what to do with that one. It isn't of very high quality. CFCF  (talk · contribs · email) 10:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I think we should move the planes articles, and the majority of content on Anatomical terms of location, to a new article, Anatomical planes. It feels very strange tacked on to the end of Anatomical terms of location. Thoughts? --LT910001 (talk) 12:42, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Comments from ColonelHenry
Before you consider a GA nomination, I would first post a note on the Wikipedia talk:Good articles and WikiProject Good Articles talk page, or seek the opinion of some GA and FL regulars like Khazar2, Dr. Blofeld, Neelix, etc., for their assessment of whether this is a GA-candidate, since I have a nagging feeling that some GA regulars might consider this article more appropriate for Featured List candidates per the GA criteria and WP:SAL.

I compared this to its sister article List of movements of the human body, List of English words containing Q not followed by U, List of terms for administrative divisions, List of names for the biblical nameless, List of movements that dispute the legitimacy of a reigning monarch and about 20 other "terms" lists/articles within a wide range of other similarly-scoped glossaries. More often than not, they were considered lists.

More to come--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:02, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your feedback. Will attempt for FL nomination per your and Eric Corbett's thoughts. --LT910001 (talk) 03:45, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Ping to . I've tried hard to get this article looking better. Almost everything is now sourced. What are your thoughts on FL? Would be very happy to accept any feedback (point by point or in general) if you have time. --LT910001 (talk) 07:09, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Eric Corbett

 * The referencing is all over the place, inconsistent and missing many details. I'm not a great fan of the rp style, but it sits very uneasily with the sfn template anyway. I've done a bit of tidying up in that area, but there's lots more to do.
 * Images such as File:Gray442.png clearly have labels, but they're far too small to read. A key would be be better.
 * As for GAN, I think Colonel Henry could well be right about this article being considered a list and therefore more suitable for FLC than GAN. Eric   Corbett  21:20, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your extensive copyedits, I recognise the references are quite inconsistent, but we're getting there. --LT910001 (talk) 03:45, 8 March 2014 (UTC)