This is the third of the five articles I am trying to get to GA status, and I would value some input on what areas would make it more comprehensive, what would improve the article, and if I am missing anything, or if there are any errors.
I'm a well-informed amateur, not a health professional, and those are limits you might want to know about as you consider my comments and questions below.
That's all right! Your review has been very thorough, which is wonderful. The article's definitely improved because of your comments. --
LT910001 (
talk)
00:25, 31 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Illustrations Done
The caption of the lead illustration says in part, "B: Base of stapes, medial surface". Isn't the medial surface on the opposite side of the footplate, toward the labyrinth?
The caption on the next illustration down says, "Chain of ossicles and their ligaments, seen from the front in a vertical, transverse section of the tympanum". Is "tympanum" the right word? Wouldn't "middle ear" be more accurate?
Usually one link per uncommon word or phrase is sufficient in a short article. Oval window is linked here five times, which is way too many. As you expand the article, you'll want to link the first use of an uncommon term but perhaps no more, depending on the situation.
Most readers will not know what "laterally" and "medially" mean. Would it be helpful to include an everyday English translation in parentheses after these words; i.e., "medially (towards the center)"?
Articles in other fields do not provide such definitions, and I am quite strongly against it, as it is usually detrimental to an article's quality and readability. We've been adding the note at the end about Anatomical terminology to deal with this issue. --
LT910001 (
talk)
00:25, 31 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Since you mention "lightest" in the lead, it should also appear in the main text (in the "Structure" section) since the lead is to be a summary of the text.
Can "smallest" and "lightest" be quantified? Would it be helpful for ordinary readers to include a comparison to something commonly known; i.e., "about the size of a fill-in-the-blank". Here's an NIH document with sizes, though only for a sample of 10:
Measurements of the stapes superstructure.
"It lies directly on the oval window." – Would "rests" be better than "lies", which seems to suggest contact with the oval window along the entire long axis of the stapes instead of just the footplate?
Everything in this section needs to be supported by a reliable source. Would it be useful to expand this section by adding brief explanations of the possible surgeries, mention of other options, and a few statistics? A good overview of otosclerosis, including incidence and prevalence stats, is
here.
Is persistence of the stapedial artery of any consequence? Does it manifest as symptoms of some sort?
History Done
Would it be helpful to expand on the controversy? If not Ingrassia, then who? Or is the controversy about something else, Ingrassia's analysis, perhaps?
Images Done
Galleries are sometimes useful in Wikipedia articles but are generally deprecated. That is, if you can work the most important illustrations into the appropriate sections of the main text, that is better than having a pile of images at the bottom of the article. I would suggest eliminating the mug shot of Ingrassia and the one of his first description; I don't think they tell us much. Ditto for the crude drawing of the ossicles. The other three are more interesting. I think I would create a smaller gallery with just those three unless the text gets big enough to fold them in.
I have removed the majority of images. Having an image of the first description is something close to my heart that is not often available, so I am strongly in favour of retaining it =P. --
LT910001 (
talk)
08:09, 1 January 2014 (UTC)reply
Citations Done
Citation 6 has a dead URL.
Citation 1 lacks available details such as the accessdate.
The Vallejo-Valdezate LA citation should be connected to something specific in the text or moved to "External links".
Will finish my update tomorrow. That was a wonderful review (in case I haven't mentioned that!) and if you feel so inclined, would I be able to ping you for another 2-3 reviews in the next few weeks? --
LT910001 (
talk)
01:14, 31 December 2013 (UTC)reply
This is the third of the five articles I am trying to get to GA status, and I would value some input on what areas would make it more comprehensive, what would improve the article, and if I am missing anything, or if there are any errors.
I'm a well-informed amateur, not a health professional, and those are limits you might want to know about as you consider my comments and questions below.
That's all right! Your review has been very thorough, which is wonderful. The article's definitely improved because of your comments. --
LT910001 (
talk)
00:25, 31 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Illustrations Done
The caption of the lead illustration says in part, "B: Base of stapes, medial surface". Isn't the medial surface on the opposite side of the footplate, toward the labyrinth?
The caption on the next illustration down says, "Chain of ossicles and their ligaments, seen from the front in a vertical, transverse section of the tympanum". Is "tympanum" the right word? Wouldn't "middle ear" be more accurate?
Usually one link per uncommon word or phrase is sufficient in a short article. Oval window is linked here five times, which is way too many. As you expand the article, you'll want to link the first use of an uncommon term but perhaps no more, depending on the situation.
Most readers will not know what "laterally" and "medially" mean. Would it be helpful to include an everyday English translation in parentheses after these words; i.e., "medially (towards the center)"?
Articles in other fields do not provide such definitions, and I am quite strongly against it, as it is usually detrimental to an article's quality and readability. We've been adding the note at the end about Anatomical terminology to deal with this issue. --
LT910001 (
talk)
00:25, 31 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Since you mention "lightest" in the lead, it should also appear in the main text (in the "Structure" section) since the lead is to be a summary of the text.
Can "smallest" and "lightest" be quantified? Would it be helpful for ordinary readers to include a comparison to something commonly known; i.e., "about the size of a fill-in-the-blank". Here's an NIH document with sizes, though only for a sample of 10:
Measurements of the stapes superstructure.
"It lies directly on the oval window." – Would "rests" be better than "lies", which seems to suggest contact with the oval window along the entire long axis of the stapes instead of just the footplate?
Everything in this section needs to be supported by a reliable source. Would it be useful to expand this section by adding brief explanations of the possible surgeries, mention of other options, and a few statistics? A good overview of otosclerosis, including incidence and prevalence stats, is
here.
Is persistence of the stapedial artery of any consequence? Does it manifest as symptoms of some sort?
History Done
Would it be helpful to expand on the controversy? If not Ingrassia, then who? Or is the controversy about something else, Ingrassia's analysis, perhaps?
Images Done
Galleries are sometimes useful in Wikipedia articles but are generally deprecated. That is, if you can work the most important illustrations into the appropriate sections of the main text, that is better than having a pile of images at the bottom of the article. I would suggest eliminating the mug shot of Ingrassia and the one of his first description; I don't think they tell us much. Ditto for the crude drawing of the ossicles. The other three are more interesting. I think I would create a smaller gallery with just those three unless the text gets big enough to fold them in.
I have removed the majority of images. Having an image of the first description is something close to my heart that is not often available, so I am strongly in favour of retaining it =P. --
LT910001 (
talk)
08:09, 1 January 2014 (UTC)reply
Citations Done
Citation 6 has a dead URL.
Citation 1 lacks available details such as the accessdate.
The Vallejo-Valdezate LA citation should be connected to something specific in the text or moved to "External links".
Will finish my update tomorrow. That was a wonderful review (in case I haven't mentioned that!) and if you feel so inclined, would I be able to ping you for another 2-3 reviews in the next few weeks? --
LT910001 (
talk)
01:14, 31 December 2013 (UTC)reply