This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Human nose has been listed as one of the
Natural sciences good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: April 10, 2020. ( Reviewed version). |
This
level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
The contents of the Anatomy of the human nose page were merged into Human nose on October 2018. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
|
|
Edit waring and yelling in edit sumarries is not how content disputes are resolved. The parties involved are lucky not to be blocked already. I have protected the page to end the edit war, if this starts back up after protection expires blocks will be the result, so how about you discuss the matter here instead? Beeblebrox ( talk) 01:44, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Hindi
Durgesh gouliya ( talk) 15:01, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Is the neoteny section substantive and relevant to the rest of the article? While the individual sentences are sourced, it seems to be making a strange argument about noses and attraction, which is illustrated by this particularly weird assertion: "Down syndrome, a neotenizing condition,[25] causes flattening of the nose.[26] However, it looks more youthful and attractive." Strongly suggest removing the whole section. Dzg 666 ( talk) 08:42, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Needless separation and would not make for a long article. Much could be removed from here as forked from rhinoplasy Iztwoz ( talk) 08:11, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi Iztwoz, well met! Saw this nominated and that it might need a bit of work in some sections eg anatomy, some citations etc. Seeing as you've nominated thought we could talk as we edit here? Just some initial thoughts:
As always looking forward to hearing from you +/- anyone else who is following the article! -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 10:17, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Ajpolino ( talk · contribs) 23:43, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
I can take this review on. Give me a few days to get through it. Sorry for the very very long wait at
WP:GAN. I hope all is well!
Ajpolino (
talk)
23:43, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Ajpolino All done here.-- Iztwoz ( talk) 08:00, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
1. It is reasonably well written.
the main function of the nose is respiration- The linked article Respiration (physiology) seems to be sort of a super-disambiguation. Maybe you could just change the words and link to breathing? I think it's the sense that's meant here, and it'll be more clear to readers...
The nasal cavity is the third most effective vocal resonator- It's probably not clear to the lay reader what you mean by this (and Vocal resonation probably won't help).
The nose is also mdae up of types of soft tissue such as skin, epithelia, mucous membrane, muscles, nerves, and blood.Do folks typically consider blood a soft tissue? Reads weird to me, but I'm no anatomist.
and the vomer bone that below.looks like a word is missing.
It divides at level of the nasal valve into superficial and deep layers, each layer having medial and lateral components.I'm not sure what this sentence means. What is "it", the nasal musculature as a whole?
This area is also known as a mucocutaneous junction that has a dense microvasculature.Is it known as a "mucocutaneous junction that has a dense microvasculature", or is it known as a "mucutaneous junction" and as an added fun fact, it has a dense microvasculature? If the latter, could you clarify? It's unclear as written.
...the nasal cycle that slows down the air conditioning process.Could you clarify "that slows down the air conditioning process? For the average reader, Air conditioning will probably come to mind, and the article Nasal cycle doesn't really highlight slowing the conditioning process as the cycle's major role.
The angle between the septum and the sidewall needs to be sufficient for unobstructed airflow.is supposed to communicate. Presumably the angles between all components of the nose must be "sufficient for unobstructed airflow". Could you clarify?
2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
It is a prime target for Botox procedures[3] in the forehead to remove the lines between the eyes.[3]cites the same source twice?
3. It is broad in its coverage.
4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
5. It is stable.
6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
Overall:
A few miscellaneous things to consider that I think would improve the article, but are also partially (or entirely) personal preference, and are in no way required to pass this GA review:
{{
TOC limit}}
should you choose.Also, some larger thoughts on improving the article going forward:
A rather basic request: is there a reason why a source from 1848 is being cited in the article? I would understand citing such dated morphology if the section were titled, say, "history of nose-morphology classification". But it isn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.5.110.4 ( talk) 03:43, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Human nose has been listed as one of the
Natural sciences good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: April 10, 2020. ( Reviewed version). |
This
level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
The contents of the Anatomy of the human nose page were merged into Human nose on October 2018. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
|
|
Edit waring and yelling in edit sumarries is not how content disputes are resolved. The parties involved are lucky not to be blocked already. I have protected the page to end the edit war, if this starts back up after protection expires blocks will be the result, so how about you discuss the matter here instead? Beeblebrox ( talk) 01:44, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Hindi
Durgesh gouliya ( talk) 15:01, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Is the neoteny section substantive and relevant to the rest of the article? While the individual sentences are sourced, it seems to be making a strange argument about noses and attraction, which is illustrated by this particularly weird assertion: "Down syndrome, a neotenizing condition,[25] causes flattening of the nose.[26] However, it looks more youthful and attractive." Strongly suggest removing the whole section. Dzg 666 ( talk) 08:42, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Needless separation and would not make for a long article. Much could be removed from here as forked from rhinoplasy Iztwoz ( talk) 08:11, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi Iztwoz, well met! Saw this nominated and that it might need a bit of work in some sections eg anatomy, some citations etc. Seeing as you've nominated thought we could talk as we edit here? Just some initial thoughts:
As always looking forward to hearing from you +/- anyone else who is following the article! -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 10:17, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Ajpolino ( talk · contribs) 23:43, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
I can take this review on. Give me a few days to get through it. Sorry for the very very long wait at
WP:GAN. I hope all is well!
Ajpolino (
talk)
23:43, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Ajpolino All done here.-- Iztwoz ( talk) 08:00, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
1. It is reasonably well written.
the main function of the nose is respiration- The linked article Respiration (physiology) seems to be sort of a super-disambiguation. Maybe you could just change the words and link to breathing? I think it's the sense that's meant here, and it'll be more clear to readers...
The nasal cavity is the third most effective vocal resonator- It's probably not clear to the lay reader what you mean by this (and Vocal resonation probably won't help).
The nose is also mdae up of types of soft tissue such as skin, epithelia, mucous membrane, muscles, nerves, and blood.Do folks typically consider blood a soft tissue? Reads weird to me, but I'm no anatomist.
and the vomer bone that below.looks like a word is missing.
It divides at level of the nasal valve into superficial and deep layers, each layer having medial and lateral components.I'm not sure what this sentence means. What is "it", the nasal musculature as a whole?
This area is also known as a mucocutaneous junction that has a dense microvasculature.Is it known as a "mucocutaneous junction that has a dense microvasculature", or is it known as a "mucutaneous junction" and as an added fun fact, it has a dense microvasculature? If the latter, could you clarify? It's unclear as written.
...the nasal cycle that slows down the air conditioning process.Could you clarify "that slows down the air conditioning process? For the average reader, Air conditioning will probably come to mind, and the article Nasal cycle doesn't really highlight slowing the conditioning process as the cycle's major role.
The angle between the septum and the sidewall needs to be sufficient for unobstructed airflow.is supposed to communicate. Presumably the angles between all components of the nose must be "sufficient for unobstructed airflow". Could you clarify?
2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
It is a prime target for Botox procedures[3] in the forehead to remove the lines between the eyes.[3]cites the same source twice?
3. It is broad in its coverage.
4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
5. It is stable.
6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
Overall:
A few miscellaneous things to consider that I think would improve the article, but are also partially (or entirely) personal preference, and are in no way required to pass this GA review:
{{
TOC limit}}
should you choose.Also, some larger thoughts on improving the article going forward:
A rather basic request: is there a reason why a source from 1848 is being cited in the article? I would understand citing such dated morphology if the section were titled, say, "history of nose-morphology classification". But it isn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.5.110.4 ( talk) 03:43, 9 September 2020 (UTC)