Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Anatomical terms of motion/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Crisco 1492 23:35, 27 May 2014 (UTC) [1].[reply]
Anatomical terms of motion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
- Nominator(s): LT910001 (talk) 01:58, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because this is one of a series of Anatomical terminology lists that I would like to nominate. These articles are viewed by several hundred thousand people a year, and are one of the more important article's under the scope of WP:ANATOMY. I've tried very hard to make this readable and easily-understood, and would value not only any feedback on FL nomination but on how readily understood the article is, as I plan to nominate the other articles in the future. Kind regards, LT910001 (talk) 01:58, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from PresN
[edit]Resolved comments from PresN
|
---|
|
- Citation 2 is a mess - it seems you're doing "name, job", so you need to a) put a semicolon between positions, b) keep the job title capitalization consistent, c) fix the ". /copy", d) you abruptly shift into name job at the end, e) Willert has no first name, and f) this is the only citation that you don't have as lastname, firstname
Question: I myself am still a little confused on this. I'd be very grateful if you could point me somewhere that tells me how to get this right, or fix this. I'd like to get this fixed and have tried but it may need some work.--LT910001 (talk) 04:34, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I think your use case is just too complicated to try to use the last, first fields; I've instead moved it all into the "author" field, which allows whatever free text you want. --PresN 18:37, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm still not entirely sure how to format this citation - for example, I don't think it's standard to note the role of editors, nor to provide the proofreaders and illustrators. Should I remove these, and leave only the list of editors in the order they were given, without noting their status? --LT910001 (talk) 00:17, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you can go either way, but I do agree that it would be more standard to just put the editors' names (and probably not the assistant editors) into the "editors" field. (or alternately, split them all into editor1-last/editor1-first, etc.) --PresN 00:06, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm still not entirely sure how to format this citation - for example, I don't think it's standard to note the role of editors, nor to provide the proofreaders and illustrators. Should I remove these, and leave only the list of editors in the order they were given, without noting their status? --LT910001 (talk) 00:17, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I think your use case is just too complicated to try to use the last, first fields; I've instead moved it all into the "author" field, which allows whatever free text you want. --PresN 18:37, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - there's a point outstanding, but I'm comfortable supporting now since it's just moving a reference around. --PresN 18:37, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Dudley Miles
[edit]Comments Support. This is a good article and I found the definitions generally clear. My queries are mainly on prose.
Resolved comments from Dudley Miles
|
---|
Dudley Miles (talk) 21:57, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments, Dudley Miles. I've tried to address your concerns. --LT910001 (talk) 00:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply] |
Oppose Support from SchroCat
[edit]I've made a number of basic changes to this: removing the spaces before refs, moving pp. to p. for single pages in the citations etc.
- "Motion, or the process of movement": the first two links in the opening line both point to disambig pages
Done Redirected one, and removed the other. --LT910001 (talk) 05:09, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Of greatest concern, there are a number of paragraphs or sentences that do not carry citations. As a general rule of thumb, each para needs to end with a citation. Thus, in the first para of the Classifications of motion section, the following is not supported by any sources:
- "Additionally, motion may be divided into gross motion, affecting the large joints (such as legs, arms, and torso), and fine movements, which describe those made by the fingers, toes, feet or wrist. The study of movement is known as kinesiology, and a categoric list of movements of the human body and the muscles involved can be found at list of movements of the human body."
- This happens throughout the page, leaving many statements unsupported. - SchroCat (talk) 10:07, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, I'll address this shortly. --LT910001 (talk) 10:40, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry for the delay. I will address your comments today or remove the offending statements. --LT910001 (talk) 21:33, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done --LT910001 (talk) 05:27, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry for the delay. I will address your comments today or remove the offending statements. --LT910001 (talk) 21:33, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, I'll address this shortly. --LT910001 (talk) 10:40, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comments, SchroCat. I wasn't sure whether these statements were one of the types (direct quotes, bibliographic information, contentious statements likely to be challenged), but I have erred on the side of caution and cited them all. I've also standardised the phraseology ("For example, ..."). Because this is Anatomy, many of the sources have labelled pictures, so I am often describing what is in the image, or providing an analagous situation. --LT910001 (talk) 05:09, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks. I've made a couple more tiny formatting tweaks, largely in the sources section: now happy to support. - SchroCat (talk) 15:24, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Brilliant! Thanks. --LT910001 (talk) 21:39, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks. I've made a couple more tiny formatting tweaks, largely in the sources section: now happy to support. - SchroCat (talk) 15:24, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusion
[edit]Thanks to all the users for their comments. It's now two and a half months since nomination, and three users have voiced their support, with none opposing. Is there a way to conclude this review? --LT910001 (talk) 21:39, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I was planning on doing it after coming home from my trip, but I can fit this in now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:33, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Delegate's Comment - This list has been promoted. There may be a delay waiting for the bot to close the nomination. Please do not edit the article history template or remove the FLC template; the bot will do that automatically. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:33, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Crisco 1492, it's been 5 days now. Is it usual to have a delay of this length? --LT910001 (talk) 11:59, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm... I'll check to see if the bot has been active. This is not the only delayed nom, sadly. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:24, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- So... how's it going, Crisco 1492? Perhaps this can be done manually? --LT910001 (talk) 03:04, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like the bot is being silly again. I have RL work to do, but perhaps Hahc21 has the time? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:39, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- So... how's it going, Crisco 1492? Perhaps this can be done manually? --LT910001 (talk) 03:04, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Crisco 1492, it's been 5 days now. Is it usual to have a delay of this length? --LT910001 (talk) 11:59, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.