![]() | Recurrent laryngeal nerve 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: February 13, 2014. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
![]() | Recurrent laryngeal nerve received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
Under "Veterinary Medicine" - "In Veterinary medicine, 'roars' refers to a deficit in the left recurrent laryngeal nerve causing characteristic stenuous sounds upon inspiration."
The word "stenuous" is the wrong word. Horses make "stertorous" (snoring) sounds when working hard if they have this deficit - or they make the "roaring" sound when doing "strenuous" exercise...but which? Paulburnett ( talk) 16:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Under "Path" - "It is referred to as "recurrent" because the branches of the nerve innervate the laryngeal muscles in the neck through a rather circuitous route: they descend into the thorax before rising up between the trachea and esophagus to reach the neck."
The reason for this circuitous route is to do with evolution - the nerve originated from the nerve used to control gills in fish. Cameronmccloud ( talk) 15:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I removed "However, the existence of fibres innervating other structures such as the Cardiac plexus along its length gives reason other than purely an evolutionary blunder for the seemingly nonsensical route." - because this is not a logical argument or statement of fact. That is, the innervating fibres are located in such a way as to enhance the argument for evolution - while this quote purports to assert the opposite. If it is meant to convey anything other than a contra-evolution position, it needs a serious re-write. To be clear - as an argument against evolution it is nonsense. As support for evolution it is written in a horrific fashion. Riluve ( talk) 17:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
I think by viewing mammals as "one size fits all" one may discover the answer for the beauty of this design, for if the laryngeal nerve went straight to the larynx the Lion would not be able to pull it's larynx into it's chest cavity in order to roar. Johncart2 ( talk) 20:23, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Well the Lion is pretty high up the food chain, not that makes it more important than any other species, though I do find it a very beautiful animal, for many reasons including it's elegance - while I know my thoughts are subjective the view of God's design being inelegant rather than beautiful is also. This is in no way meant to be a argument just another point of view to consider in the definitive scientific explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johncart2 ( talk • contribs) 08:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
I really don't understand why the evolution section is included. While the discussion about the different path of the nerve in different species is factual and potentially useful information, terms like "extreme detour" and "wrong side of the heart" reek of opinion, the link to evolution is speculative, and the assertion that this disproves intelligent design is scientifically unsound. Furthermore, how does a popular book by Dr. Dawkins qualify as a valid citation? Is there no peer-reviewed scientific article that supports these claims? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.192.32.160 ( talk) 05:20, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
These terms are not speculative, as mentioned above, the reason for this circuitous route is to do with evolution - the nerve originated from the nerve used to control gills in fish. Dr. Dawkins is an academically published evolutionary biologist, this component is mainstream evolutionary science.( talk) 05:20, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
I saw reference to this article at WP:RSN, and as I posted over there, do not believe the ICS references to qualify as MEDRS. Discuss here please. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/ talk ]# ▄ 10:31, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Seppi333 ( talk · contribs) 02:22, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
A good article is—
Overall, the article looks good. Just needs 1 minor tweak (source addition) and then it satisfies GA criteria. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 03:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Criteria | Notes | Result |
---|---|---|
(a) (prose) | Sufficient with the noted typos addressed (see edit history). |
![]() |
(b) (MoS) | Made
MOS:NBSP,
MOS:NDASH,
WP:MOSNUM, and word-symbol consistency fixes. ![]() |
![]() |
Criteria | Notes | Result |
---|---|---|
(a) (references) |
![]() | |
(b) (citations to reliable sources) | Cited sources are reliable and sources for medical claims satisfy
WP:MEDRS. (Excluding the issue with the CN tag noted in (2a)) |
![]() |
(c) (original research) | No synth or OR. |
![]() |
Criteria | Notes | Result |
---|---|---|
(a) (major aspects) | Coverage seems okay - nothing seems lacking. |
![]() |
(b) (focused) | Adequate scope. |
![]() |
Notes | Result |
---|---|
No apparent WP:POV issues. |
![]() |
Notes | Result |
---|---|
Obvioiusly stable. |
![]() |
Criteria | Notes | Result |
---|---|---|
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) | All images have an appropriate free licence. |
![]() |
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) | Pass after minor copyedits per WP:ALT. |
![]() |
Result | Notes |
---|---|
![]() |
This article looks like a GA based upon my assessment of the article and interpretation of the criteria. Well done! Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢ | Maintained) |
![]() | Recurrent laryngeal nerve 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: February 13, 2014. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
![]() | Recurrent laryngeal nerve received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
Under "Veterinary Medicine" - "In Veterinary medicine, 'roars' refers to a deficit in the left recurrent laryngeal nerve causing characteristic stenuous sounds upon inspiration."
The word "stenuous" is the wrong word. Horses make "stertorous" (snoring) sounds when working hard if they have this deficit - or they make the "roaring" sound when doing "strenuous" exercise...but which? Paulburnett ( talk) 16:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Under "Path" - "It is referred to as "recurrent" because the branches of the nerve innervate the laryngeal muscles in the neck through a rather circuitous route: they descend into the thorax before rising up between the trachea and esophagus to reach the neck."
The reason for this circuitous route is to do with evolution - the nerve originated from the nerve used to control gills in fish. Cameronmccloud ( talk) 15:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I removed "However, the existence of fibres innervating other structures such as the Cardiac plexus along its length gives reason other than purely an evolutionary blunder for the seemingly nonsensical route." - because this is not a logical argument or statement of fact. That is, the innervating fibres are located in such a way as to enhance the argument for evolution - while this quote purports to assert the opposite. If it is meant to convey anything other than a contra-evolution position, it needs a serious re-write. To be clear - as an argument against evolution it is nonsense. As support for evolution it is written in a horrific fashion. Riluve ( talk) 17:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
I think by viewing mammals as "one size fits all" one may discover the answer for the beauty of this design, for if the laryngeal nerve went straight to the larynx the Lion would not be able to pull it's larynx into it's chest cavity in order to roar. Johncart2 ( talk) 20:23, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Well the Lion is pretty high up the food chain, not that makes it more important than any other species, though I do find it a very beautiful animal, for many reasons including it's elegance - while I know my thoughts are subjective the view of God's design being inelegant rather than beautiful is also. This is in no way meant to be a argument just another point of view to consider in the definitive scientific explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johncart2 ( talk • contribs) 08:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
I really don't understand why the evolution section is included. While the discussion about the different path of the nerve in different species is factual and potentially useful information, terms like "extreme detour" and "wrong side of the heart" reek of opinion, the link to evolution is speculative, and the assertion that this disproves intelligent design is scientifically unsound. Furthermore, how does a popular book by Dr. Dawkins qualify as a valid citation? Is there no peer-reviewed scientific article that supports these claims? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.192.32.160 ( talk) 05:20, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
These terms are not speculative, as mentioned above, the reason for this circuitous route is to do with evolution - the nerve originated from the nerve used to control gills in fish. Dr. Dawkins is an academically published evolutionary biologist, this component is mainstream evolutionary science.( talk) 05:20, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
I saw reference to this article at WP:RSN, and as I posted over there, do not believe the ICS references to qualify as MEDRS. Discuss here please. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/ talk ]# ▄ 10:31, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Seppi333 ( talk · contribs) 02:22, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
A good article is—
Overall, the article looks good. Just needs 1 minor tweak (source addition) and then it satisfies GA criteria. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 03:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Criteria | Notes | Result |
---|---|---|
(a) (prose) | Sufficient with the noted typos addressed (see edit history). |
![]() |
(b) (MoS) | Made
MOS:NBSP,
MOS:NDASH,
WP:MOSNUM, and word-symbol consistency fixes. ![]() |
![]() |
Criteria | Notes | Result |
---|---|---|
(a) (references) |
![]() | |
(b) (citations to reliable sources) | Cited sources are reliable and sources for medical claims satisfy
WP:MEDRS. (Excluding the issue with the CN tag noted in (2a)) |
![]() |
(c) (original research) | No synth or OR. |
![]() |
Criteria | Notes | Result |
---|---|---|
(a) (major aspects) | Coverage seems okay - nothing seems lacking. |
![]() |
(b) (focused) | Adequate scope. |
![]() |
Notes | Result |
---|---|
No apparent WP:POV issues. |
![]() |
Notes | Result |
---|---|
Obvioiusly stable. |
![]() |
Criteria | Notes | Result |
---|---|---|
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) | All images have an appropriate free licence. |
![]() |
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) | Pass after minor copyedits per WP:ALT. |
![]() |
Result | Notes |
---|---|
![]() |
This article looks like a GA based upon my assessment of the article and interpretation of the criteria. Well done! Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢ | Maintained) |