Wikipedia:Peer review/Foramen spinosum/archive1

Foramen spinosum
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I'm preparing it for GA and would like some feedback. Perhaps from =D? All other feedback welcome!

Thanks, LT910001 (talk) 01:30, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Finetooth comments
 * I'll start by expanding on my last disclaimer. As we move away from the ear, my amateur knowledge decreases. Nonetheless, I'm finding these anatomy articles to be truly interesting. Examining a Gray's illustration reminds me of reading a topographic map, which I enjoy. Here are my comments and questions:

Lead ✅
 * Eventually the lead should briefly mention the main ideas in the function and clinical significance sections and perhaps other sections if they grow longer.

Structure ✅
 * Link middle cranial fossa?
 * Two sentences in this section mention "scaphoid". One mentions the "spine of scaphoid", and the other says, "Posterior is the spinous process of the scaphoid bone." – This must mean the sphenoid bone since the scaphoid bone is part of the wrist. In that case, should these two instances be changed to sphenoid and the first one linked to spine of sphenoid bone?
 * Sorry, occasionally the word I　type and the word I intend to type don't match =P. Have fixed. Additionally, thanks for pointing this out. Have clarified. --LT910001 (talk) 11:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Variation ✅
 * Link middle meningeal artery here on first use rather than later in the "Function" section?
 * "in almost half of people" – Would "in almost half the population" be better?
 * I think so. Have made the change. --LT910001 (talk) 11:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Development
 * "The sphenomandibular ligament, derived from the first brachial arch, may be found attached to the foramen." – I think the redlinked "brachial arch" must mean "branchial arch". To avoid confusion, could the term link to first pharyngeal arch, maybe with a pipe to "first branchial arch" or "mandibular arch"?
 * Rectified. --LT910001 (talk) 11:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Another problem with the sentence above is that it's hard to see how a ligament could attach to a hole. Is there a better way to say this? Maybe "is attached to the spine of the sphenoid bone near the foramen"?
 * Clarified. --LT910001 (talk) 11:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

In animals
 * "In other hominids the foramen spinosum is found not in the sphenoid bone, but in parts of the temporal bone such as the squamous part, found at the sphenosquamosal suture, or absent." – Would it be better to use "squama" rather than "squamous part" and link it to squama temporalis and to make a separate sentence out of the last two words, thus: ""In other hominids the foramen spinosum is found not in the sphenoid bone but in parts of the temporal bone such as the squama, found at the sphenosquamosal suture. In yet other hominids the foramen spinosum is absent."
 * Have linked to the squamous part. Am not in big favour of the combined or Latin terms, as I feel these are even less accessible than normal anatomical terminology. --LT910001 (talk) 11:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Function ✅
 * Shouldn't recurrent branch of mandibular nerve link to meningeal branch of the mandibular nerve?

Clinical significance
 * Link to hemostasis (possibly piped to retain the alternative spelling) rather than haemostasis, the dictionary definition? ✅
 * How does the foramen spinosum help in achieving homostasis during trauma surgery?
 * (hemostasis) It may need to be explored in order to, presumably, occlude bleeding from the vessels within it (although this wasn't actually specified in the source). --LT910001 (talk) 11:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

References
 * The Gray's template should be edited to produce Gray's Anatomy in italics. I can easily do that, but I'm reluctant to edit a template used in thousands of medical articles. One possible fix would render the book title in italics and remove the italics from the rest of the sentence. Another possible fix would italicize the whole sentence. Would either of these changes be helpful?


 * Citations 1 and 3 use different forms of date formatting. Either form is OK, but the guidelines call for internal consistency.


 * Citation 6 is incomplete.
 * Thanks for your noticing this. Citations 1 and 3 are both using the automatic wiki style, so I'm going to leave those, as I'm not aiming for FA status. --LT910001 (talk) 11:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

External links
 * The link to eMedicine Dictionary produces only a "No Exact Match Found" message.
 * Have removed this and one other link I don't think was that useful. --LT910001 (talk) 11:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * That's all I have at the moment. Again, Happy New Year! Finetooth (talk) 02:43, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * thanks again, I'm very grateful for your prompt and well thought-out reviews. There are two more articles I want to promote that may need reviews, but not yet :P. Thanks again! --LT910001 (talk) 11:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)