Wikipedia:Peer review/Human musculoskeletal system/archive1

Human musculoskeletal system

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for March 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like an additional opinion on what is needed to progress to GA and to overall improve the article.

Thanks, Dondevoy01 (talk) 01:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: With regard to what's needed to meet the GA criteria, the points at the GA review left here are a good starting point. The actual GA criteria can be found at WP:GACR. Because the review left by Doc James seems like a good skeleton of a review, I'll use that as a framework for this review.

First, the introduction (also called the lead) needs work. The current number of paragraphs (three) is good, but they should be increased in length slightly. Consider adding one or two sentences to the second and third paragraphs, and make the first paragraph similar in length to those two paragraphs once they're done. Also, keep the guidelines from WP:LEAD in mind: the lead section should serve as both an introduction to the subject of the article and a short, independent summary. To achieve the "summary" aspect of the lead, add a few sentence to the lead about each of the subsystems of the human musculoskeletal system (i.e. skeletal, muscular, nervous, etc.), including how they interrelate.
Rather than deleting the subsections on carpal tunnel syndrome and osteoporesis, I would have merged them into the 'Diseases and disorders' section as suggested by Doc James. Consider working the lone, hefty paragraph that constitutes that section into separate paragraphs, one for a few diseases of each subsystem of the musculoskeletal system. The current paragraph seems rather fluffy in its language, and should be significantly parsed down. For example, the following excerpt should be reworked to speak less abstractly about diseases, and instead specify which diseases (like carpal tunnel and osteoporesis) people are actually diagnosed with: "Articular (of or pertaining to the joints)[14] disorders are the most common. However, also among the diagnoses are: primary muscular diseases, neurologic (related to the medical science that deals with the nervous system and disorders affecting it)[15] deficits, toxins, endocrine abnormalities, metabolic disorders, infectious diseases, blood and vascular disorders, and nutritional imbalances."

I'll be back to add more later, but this should be enough work for the moment. Emw2012 (talk) 20:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from GrahamColm (talk · contribs) My knee-jerk response when reading this interesting article for the first time was the obvious need for a good textbook, rather than relying on internet sources. The article does not describe a system and this is a problem. For this article to successfully describe a system, I think a homeostatic approach is needed, to show how the parts of the anatomy work together. Can I offer some advice regarding the structure of the article?

I would start with an description of the bones—spongy bones, compact bones, and the bone cells, —especially the bone-building cells, the osteoblasts and the bone-sculpturing cells the osteoclasts and their parents the osteogenic cells. Then describe the skeletal system from head-to-toe; skull, spine, ribs and sternum, pelvis, hands and toes and arms and legs. Then a better section on the joints and their types—ball and socket (hip), hinge (wrist) for example. Joints need muscles to make them work. How big are these, how are they attached, how do they work, where do they get their energy from? How are they controlled? Which leads to the nerves, which are clearly a part of this system. Is the brain part of the system? If so, what part of the brain controls it and how does it do this? A lot of this is in the article, but it has not been brought together in a systematic way. Graham. Graham Colm ^Talk 23:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow... thank you immensly for your contribution to this review. Sorry I got to this a little late. I will begin work on this as soon as possible. Cheers, Dondevoy01 (talk) 03:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]