Talk:Flexibility (anatomy)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 February 2019 and 4 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Janethomas13, Alexgarc99.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Evaluation

On a quick read through, I noticed a few stylistic errors such as the use of second person in various points throughout the article. The last few sections are also confusingly worded. I will try to fix the problems in any spare time that comes up. Other than that it looks okay. Nwimber 05:44, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Criticism

After reading about the first half of this page, I have concluded that it is one of the worst written (Wikipedia) articles I have seen since the article on Dreams, which may have improved tremendously in the last few years.

Case in point ... the "Ballistic" section, while describing a couple of things that "Ballistic" is not, and when it should not be used, does not describe what it is, at all!

This article is truly design by committee in the worst way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.151.32.251 (talk) 18:36, May 27, 2011 (UTC)

You fail to mention in your only example the internal link to "ballistic", where it would have been reasonable to assume that further description of the term could be found. I have concluded that this was design[ed] by a committee to be an empty criticism. Hyacinth (talk) 05:55, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Flexibility (anatomy). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110303022844/http://www.med.nyu.edu:80/hjd/harkness/patients/injuries/hip.html to http://www.med.nyu.edu/hjd/harkness/patients/injuries/hip.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:44, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Possible copyright violation

Hello, using Earwig's Copyvio Detector, it seems that some parts of this article are copyright violations from http://retirementandgoodliving.com/exercising-2/flexibility/. Can someone change the parts violating to their own words? See this report for details. Thanks, Pokéfan95 (talk) 11:52, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Pokéfan95, the Copyvio Detector is a tool that assists us in spotting potential copyright violations. It doesn't decide definitively that copyright violations have occurred. A certain amount of investigation is still warranted after using the tool.

• Looking at the retirementandgoodliving site, I notice that it's a very generic-looking website with content attributed to nobody, and no names of people prominently displayed anywhere, including on their "About" page. That alone is suggestive of a cookie-cutter content aggregation site, or a site that harvests content from other places around the Internet so that they can make money from accidental visits. Wikipedia is a major collection of information, and it's very common for sites to mirror content from Wikipedia without proper attribution. (It's also a violation of our terms of use.) However, that explanation is too simple, so let's look a little deeper:
• The earliest archive of the blog can be found here at Archive.org. The snapshot was taken in March 2013.
• If I run a Whois on the site, I find that the domain was first registered 12 April 2012.
• As I look through the Wikipedia article's edit history, I find this, which introduces the "Flexibility is improved by stretching" content in 2010, well before the other site was created. Note also that the content is supported with a citation.
• The "absolute range of movement" text also appears in that version, and also appears in the article's earliest version in 2006.
• "Gender, age, and genetics are important for range of motion" began here in December 2009 as "Gender, age, and genetics are important for your range of motion." (Emphasis mine) In April 2010 the phrasing "Streching often helps you be more flexible." (Typo in "streching") was added here. By December 2010 the content eventually changed to "Gender, age, and genetics are important for range of motion. Exercise including stretching often helps improve flexibility." So we can see how the phrasing evolved, which means that it was not pasted verbatim.
• The content "Quality of life is enhanced by improving and maintaining a good range of motion in the joints" was added here in 2009, and I'm sure if you tick through the following diffs, you'll see the article further evolve to the version that appears at retirementandgoodliving.com.

So, given that the Wikipedia content appears in the article long before the blog was even created, the most likely explanation is that the retirementandgoodliving site copied Wikipedia without providing proper attribution and not the other way around. If you feel differently, I'm interested in your take. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:49, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the info. Great to see that there is no copyright violation in this article. Considering that the website I mentioned didn't properly attributed this article, I will try to contact them to attribute Wikipedia properly. Thanks, Pokéfan95 (talk) 04:18, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Flexibility

Speech 1.186.196.191 (talk) 14:35, 21 September 2022 (UTC)