Wikipedia:Peer review/Stapes/archive1

Stapes

This peer review discussion has been closed.

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.

Thanks! LT910001 (talk) 02:20, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Finetooth comments

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)

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?

Reworded both. --LT910001 (talk) 00:25, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Overlinking  Done

• 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.

Removed, and also removed excess references to stirrups and ossicles. If I've missed something please let me know! --LT910001 (talk) 00:25, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Lead  Done

• 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)

• 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.

Done. --LT910001 (talk) 01:14, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Structure  Done

• 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.

Welcome to the world of minor Anatomy, which often feels like a professional game of Chinese whispers. --LT910001 (talk) 01:14, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

• "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?

Made the change--LT910001 (talk) 00:25, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

In animals  Done

• Link gill arch?
• Italicize pars media plectra.

Done and done. --LT910001 (talk) 00:25, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Clinical relevance  Done

• 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.

Added a source and details. --LT910001 (talk) 01:14, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

• 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)

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".

Fixed: removed or replaced all three citations.

That's all I have at the moment. Please ping me if my notes above are unclear. Good luck with this, and Happy New Year! Finetooth (talk) 20:18, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

：：All right!! Finetooth, thanks for providing a very thorough review! Will address your comments soon. Thank you! --LT910001 (talk) 23:28, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

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)

I enjoyed reviewing this one. I'd be glad to review others, if you like. Finetooth (talk) 04:39, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Have nominated for GA status, will respond to your comments in the 2-3 months wait for a review. --LT910001 (talk) 01:30, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Have addressed all your commentary. Thanks! --LT910001 (talk) 08:09, 1 January 2014 (UTC)