Wikipedia:Peer review/Recurrent laryngeal nerve/archive1

Recurrent laryngeal nerve

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because Novangelis and I are trying to get this article to GA status, and would like some feedback on the article as it stands in preparation for a review, perhaps from the wonderful Finetooth or any other charitable souls?

Thanks, LT910001 (talk) 00:32, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Finetooth comments:

Lead Done

• I would expand the lead (lede) to include a brief summary of the lower three sections of the article. For an article of this length, a lead of two or three paragraphs would be typical.
• "gives cardiac branches" – "Gives" doesn't seem like quite the right word. Would "extends to" or "includes" be better?

Expanded and reworded. --LT910001 (talk) 03:11, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Structure & Nucleus  Done

Structure  Done The text sandwich between File:Gray505.png and the infobox is generally considered a layout problem. It would probably be better to move Gray505.png to the right under the infobox. Done. --LT910001 (talk) 09:19, 20 January 2014 (UTC) Nucleus  Done Link medulla oblongata on first use in this section? Link "inferior jugular ganglion" to something, perhaps inferior ganglion of vagus nerve? Done. --LT910001 (talk) 09:19, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Development  Done

• "Arches 4 and 6 produce the laryngeal cartilages." – Link laryngeal cartilages or, since this link is to a disambiguation page, list and link all of the laryngeal cartilages thus: "Arches 4 and 6 produce the laryngeal cartilages: the arytenoid, cricoid, thyroid cartilages and the epiglottis." In saying this, however, I note once again that I have no expertise in anatomy, and it may be that the epiglottis does not belong in the list since the article about the epiglottis lists "hypobranchial eminence" as a precursor rather than "4th and 6th branchial arch". Perhaps "hypobranchial eminence" is incorrect, though, or imprecise; it is flagged in the epiglottis article as relying on a possibly unreliable source. Not sure.

Have rewritten this section, and hopefully this will now make sense. --LT910001 (talk) 03:11, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Other disease  Done

• "a rare cause of left RLN palsy" – Link to palsy in Wiktionary or to something else in Wikipedia, perhaps bulbar palsy?

Clarified. --LT910001 (talk) 03:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

In animals  Done

• Since "wheezing sound" is linked to stridor in the dog paragraph in this subsection, perhaps "sound", which is linked to stertorous, should be written as "heavy gasping sound" in the horse paragraph.
• "when middle-aged dogs are breathing in" – Slightly tighter would be "when middle-aged dogs inhale".
• Single-sentence paragraphs tend to be deprecated. Could something more about dogs be added? Are any particular breeds more susceptible than others?
• "In the vertebrates with the longest necks, the sauropod dinosaurs, the nerve length would have been... " – Should "the nerve" be more specific here? I assume this means the left recurrent laryngeal nerve rather than the sum of both left and right. Or perhaps this includes the length of the vagus nerve as well. Not sure.

Thanks, we inherited this paragraph from a previous editor. Have clarified and made the formatting of symptoms consistent throughout the article. --LT910001 (talk) 04:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Evidence of evolution  Done

• "The extreme detour of this nerve... ". – Same question here. Should "this nerve" be made more specific?
• "fish-like ancestors of modern tetrapods" – Link tetrapod?

Resolved. --LT910001 (talk) 04:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

References  Done

• Generally, Wikipedia uses its own house style for book and article titles even if the reliable sources use other styles. Inconsistency in the style could raise eyebrows at FAC, perhaps at GAN as well. Citations 24 and 25 illustrate the difference. Citation 25 is in Wikipedia style, uppercase for the main words and lowercase for the little connector words. To make citation 24 conform, I would change the chapter title to read: "11. History Written All Over Us" and the book title to read "The Greatest Show on Earth". Ditto for all similar situations. Come to think of it, I might not have mentioned these nitpicks in relation to Stapes and Foramen spinosum, but they would apply there as well unless individual project guidelines take precedence.
• Some of the book citations, such as citation 24, include the place of publication, and some, like citation 27, do not. It's best to include the place of publication for all of the books.
• Citation 15 lacks the name of the publisher.
• Citation 12 has an "edit" link at the end of the citation. I don't know what that's for.

The 'edit' is, I think, inserted automatically. Have neatened two citations; will give them a check-over before nomination. --LT910001 (talk) 04:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Additional images  Done

• Should anything be linked in this caption: "The right sympathetic chain and its connections with the thoracic, abdominal, and pelvic plexuses"? Sympathetic chain perhaps? And plexus maybe?
• Since File:Rekurrens.png is used already in the "Clinical significance" section, I would delete it from the "Additional images" section.

Done. Removed all images, they did not improve the article's quality or readability. --LT910001 (talk) 09:19, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

External links  Done

• The link to "Example of Vocal Cord Paralysis" returns a "Http/1.1 Service Unavailable" message when clicked.

Done. --LT910001 (talk) 09:19, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I hope this helps. Please ping me if any of my comments don't make sense. Finetooth (talk) 21:15, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again for your detailed review and copyediting. We'll (myself, Novangelis and perhaps others) will get to work on the article over the next week. --LT910001 (talk) 02:49, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

More

• Consider adding inline citation to lead.

Can almost guarantee that if I do this we will get a reviewer who states that this should never happen

=P. The in-text citations cover what has been written here. --LT910001 (talk) 03:11, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

FYI, if anyone has previously asked you to remove inline citation from the lead, they were wrong. Lead should always have inline citation as far as I read the MOS... Lesion (talk) 11:20, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, the counter-argument that I've seen used on GA nominations is that the lead is supposed to be in summary style etc. At any rate these are well-cited in text and shouldn't be a problem. Anything you're working on at the moment that could do with some extra eyes/hands? --LT910001 (talk) 12:32, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I realized I was not entirely sure on this point, so I asked at the help desk. WP:CITELEAD has this to say: "Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material." so I think you are correct here, apologies. Lesion (talk) 12:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• Could File:Laryngeal nerve.jpg be vectorized? It looks a bit pixelated, if that is the right word. See here: [1]. They will probably do this for you nicely at the graphics lab: [2]

Tbanks, have left a request on the page. --LT910001 (talk) 03:11, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• Probably irrelevant trivia, but what impact does situs inversus have on the recurrent laryngeal nerves?

Not too sure of the statistics (this itself is very rare), but it makes a non-recurrent left nerve much more likely. --LT910001 (talk) 03:11, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• In one picture caption, the word struma is used. Is Goiter not the more common term? Lesion (talk) 23:46, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Done. --LT910001 (talk) 03:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Lesion, frustratingly my internet access is quite limited at the moment, so I might not be able to make timely changes to the article. That said, these will eventually get addressed =P --LT910001 (talk) 04:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Conclusion

Finetooth and Lesion, Thanks again to you both; I feel this article is ready for a nomination, so have closed the review and marked for GA nomination. --LT910001 (talk) 03:11, 29 January 2014 (UTC)