Wikipedia:Peer review/Fovea/archive1

Fovea edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's a good quality article that seems to meet most of the featured article criteria.

Thanks, SaintedLegion (talk) 15:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

Firstly, I'd suggest going for good article rather than FA, this article is quite short.

References should not have spaces between each other or between them and punctuation, per WP:CITE.
Don't use underlining in the references.
Lead image shouldn't exceed 300px per WP:MOS#Images.
Too many short paragraphs in the description section, merge some of them.
More citations are required, for example " As an anatomical term there are several foveae around the body, including in the head of the femur." needs reference.
Description section could use a few wikilinks, e.g femur.
Non-breaking spaces should be used between values and units.
(Balashov and Bernstein, 1998) - if this is intended to be a reference, make it a proper ref.

My biggest concern is the lack of references. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from delldot

I agree with The Rambling Man that the article is very short and thus would probably not pass FAC; go for GA first, but I think it could stand some organization before it passes GAN as well. But a good start, a very interesting article. A few comments:

If you take TRM's advice to scale down the image, I'd upload a new picture with bigger writing (won't be hard to do, since it's svg).
How about a list in the lead of the types of animals that have and do not have foveae? For example, do insects have them? This will help with the discussion of the different types in different animals in the next section.
"This, in turn, is surrounded by a larger peripheral area that delivers highly compressed information of low resolution" delivers it to where?
"That is why it has little loss of sensory data..." If 'it' here refers to the fovea, maybe say "That is why the fovea has..."
"For example, in primates, cone photoreceptors line the base of the foveal pit, the cells which elsewhere in the retina form more superficial layers having been displaced away from the foveal region during late fetal and early postnatal life." This sentence is hard to understand. Maybe it can be expanded into a few sentences with more detailed explanations.
I would recommend breaking the text into different sections, rather than having it all under one "description" section. For example, the discussion of the fovea centralis could go in its own "fovea centralis" section. Another set of sections could discuss differences in different animals, e.g. an "in mammals" section, "in birds", etc. At the very least, I would recommend separating out anatomy and physiology from other facts into their own section.
Can you explain what the 'foveal cone mosaic' is?
The sentence "The absence of inner retinal cells from the foveae of primates is assumed..." also needs a citation. Same with "the fovea is largely responsible for the color vision in humans which is superior to that of most other mammals."
When you have a sort of obscure term that your average lay reader might not understand, e.g. 'optical axis' or 'chromatic aberration', you should give a little byline explaining it. On the other hand, good job wikilinking these terms, that will work in some cases where a parenthetical note wouldn't work.
You should avoid galleries if possible, instead working some images into the article (I went ahead and did this).
See also section should come before references (I did this).

Overall nice work, keep it up! Don't hesitate to leave me a message on my talk page if you have any questions or need anything, I'm always glad to help. delldot talk 17:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, one more thing: What does (Balashov and Bernstein, 1998) refer to? This should be turned into a complete citation and converted to the cite.php format that the rest of the references are in. If we can't do that, it should be removed, because it's not useful if the work it's referring to isn't clear. delldot talk 17:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]