Talk:Foramen spinosum

Foramen spinosum has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: February 7, 2014. (Reviewed version).

Foramen spinosum received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Anatomy: Gross Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anatomy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anatomy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnatomyWikipedia:WikiProject AnatomyTemplate:WikiProject AnatomyAnatomy articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been classified as relating to gross anatomy.

Animal anatomy Low‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Animal anatomy, an attempt to organise a detailed guide to all topics related to animal anatomy apart from human anatomy. To participate, you can edit the attached article, or contribute further at WikiProject Animal anatomy. This project is an offshoot of WikiProject AnimalsAnimal anatomyWikipedia:WikiProject Animal anatomyTemplate:WikiProject Animal anatomyAnimal anatomy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Foramen spinosum/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sahara4u (talk · contribs) 03:27, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Done Lead section may be expanded a little. Usually, a paragraph of more than three line ts recommended, merge the two para.

Fleshed out.--LT910001 (talk) 04:38, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done History section should come before Structure.

Thanks, the relevant guideline for this article is WP:MEDMOS#Anatomy. For Anatomy articles and medicine-related articles in general, history is recommended as coming after structure.--LT910001 (talk) 04:38, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done Images need alt text.

Thanks for pointing this out, alternate text is a great way to make articles more accessible that I previously wasn't aware of. I'm not sure if my browser is able to view them, so if I haven't done it correctly please let me know.--LT910001 (talk) 04:38, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done Place "Additional images" before References

Done, and removed one image. --LT910001 (talk) 04:38, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

—Zia Khan 03:34, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments and taking up this review, I hope we can work together to get this promoted. --LT910001 (talk) 04:38, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking up this review, Sahara4u, I feel I have addressed your concerns. Do you have any additional concerns regarding promotion to GA status? LT910001 (talk) 12:59, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment

GA review (see Wikipedia:Good article criteria and WP:GACN)

Well-written.
a (clear and concise prose which doesn't violate copyright laws, grammar and spelling are correct): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, and fiction:
Factually accurate and verifiable.
a (well referenced): b (citations to reliable sources): c (Wikipedia:No original research):
Broad in its coverage.
a (covers major aspects): b (well focused):
Neutral .
Fair representation, no bias:
Stable.
No edit wars nor disputed contents:
Illustrated appropriately by images.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Conclusion: Good work with the article. Keep it up! —Zia Khan 23:25, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Pass/Fail: