Wikipedia:Peer review/Mylohyoid muscle/archive1
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am trying to elevate this to GA status, but am unsure what else could be done to improve it. Would value some feedback (particularly from Anatomy-minded Wikipedians)
Thanks, LT910001 (talk) 11:41, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program
[edit]Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
- Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
- This article has no or few images. Please see if there are any free use images that fall under the Wikipedia:Image use policy and fit under one of the Wikipedia:Image copyright tags that can be uploaded. To upload images on Wikipedia, go to Special:Upload; to upload non-fair use images on the Wikimedia Commons, go to commons:special:upload.[?]
- Avoid including galleries in articles, as per Wikipedia:Galleries. Common solutions to this problem include moving the gallery to wikicommons or integrating images with the text.[?]
- This article is a bit too short, and therefore may not be as comprehensive as WP:WIAFA critera 1(b) is looking for. Please see if anything can be expanded upon.[?]
- Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]
-(t) Josve05a (c) 23:48, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Some initial comments
[edit]There appears to be contradictory advice as to how anatomy articles should be standardized. According to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(medicine-related_articles)#Anatomy:
- Location and structure, including size, whether it's a paired structure, attachments/insertions/"parents", subclinical variation
- Development for discussing developmental biology, i.e. embryological/fetal, associated with structure
- Function
- Clinical relevance for discussing diseases and other medical associations with the structure
- Society and culture (may include Etymology)
- Other animals (may include comparative anatomy for discussing non-human anatomy in articles that are predominantly human-based)
- Additional images in a gallery format
According to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Anatomy/Guidelines#Subsections:
- Comparative anatomy (for discussing non-human anatomy in articles that are predominantly human-based).
- Clinical relevance (for discussing diseases and other medical associations with the structure).
- Etymology (see 'Etymology' below)
- Development (for discussing developmental biology, i.e. embryological/fetal, associated with structure).
Not sure which we should follow. Best ask a member of Wikiproject anatomy.
- Embryology- a term needs explaining.
- Vasculature? Lymphatics?
- Attachments. There are 2 terms here: origin and insertion. The origin is usually the more fixed structure. Both mandible and hyoid are not very fixed, so I am not sure which is which in this case... need a source.
- Note that "inferior mandible" is very dated anatomical wording. Mandible and maxilla, not inferior mandible and superior mandible, or indeed superior maxilla and inferior maxilla. These terms might still be used in non human anatomy, but not in modern human anatomy to my knowledge.
- I have added some info on clinical relevance and spread of odontogenic infection, but need a source. I do not have any textbooks with me unfortunately. Lesion (talk) 10:17, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- Suggest some content about plunging ranula if you need something more to talk about in clinical relevance section: [1], [2]. Lesion (talk) 10:25, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments, Lesion. There are in fact 0 (zero) good articles under the scope of WP:Anatomy that use the recommended guidelines, which leads me to conclude that they may need some slight alterations, and additionally I do not feel they are suited to articles about smaller anatomical structures, as they may produce very sort sections, so I have been trialling a different structure and am attempting to get at least 5 articles to GA status with that structure. Thanks for your comments and edits and I'll get working on them when I come off my break. --LT910001 (talk) 03:28, 6 December 2013 (UTC)