- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by 97198 (talk) 10:53, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Cranial nerve
edit
- ... that cranial nerves (pictured) emerge directly from the brain and supply it with motor and sensory innervation?
5x expanded by CFCF (talk), Lesion (talk). Nominated by CFCF (talk) at 09:42, 21 February 2014 (UTC).
- As in the article, I think this DYK would read better as 'emerge directly from the brain' rather than 'arise'.Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 15:51, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
This top-importance Anatomy/Neuroscience/Neurology page has, in the last few days, been greatly expanded (>5-fold after excluding per MEDMOS, mnemonics) and improved by three Wikipedians working in close collaboration (see [1]) in a way which, I believe, really deserves recognition. The sourcing is largely based on major textbooks, per WP:MEDRS. The hook appears suitably pithy and striking: without being gimmicky in any way, it evokes a memorable mental picture regarding our brain-body interactions. Despite the presence of a few (comprehensible) sourcing requests I think this would make a really good encyclopedic contribution to DYK. 86.173.146.3 (talk) 19:08, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Adding: (While I think the hook paints a good picture, I wasn't quite so sure about the effectiveness of image itself, at its present size. But then again, colour blindness means I'm probably not a good judge of this anyway...) 81.147.166.111 (talk) 22:15, 25 February 2014 (UTC) [formerly 86.173.146.3]
- No, because it uses red, one of the colours most commonly affected by colour-blindness, to convey information. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
While I agree that this would make an excellent DYK hook for the main page, the "citation needed" templates need to be addressed before this can properly be given an approval here. I don't imagine it will take that long to find the appropriate sourcing. I also have a question: in addition to CFCF and Lesion, the initial 23K expansion edit also lists LT910001 as one of the expanders. Shouldn't this user also be receiving credit for this DYK? BlueMoonset (talk) 04:27, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- LT910001 helped organize the structure in the discussion page, but writing was me and Lesion. I don't mind who gets credit, but I didn't see how to add third author?
- As for citations, I'm on it. Most of them are gone, have two that need to be fixed, but I'll be done with it today as soon as I get hold of some good evolutionary neurobiology sources (didn't write that portion, even though it seems fully correct). CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 07:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- CFCF, thanks for your response. I only asked about LT910001 because that user was mentioned in a edit summary; looking at the single talk-page comment, I don't think that is a DYK-credit-worthy contribution in the scheme of things. The nomination is still waiting for the last of the citation issues to be addressed; hope you can get to it soon. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:08, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Would like to have this looked at by someone better acquainted with DYK rules than the original reviewer. Please check overall sourcing and do a close paraphrase check. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:46, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- Mostly OK. Article is long enough and new enough. No QPQ required for this contributor. Hook fact is in the article and is supported by citations. Because I can't see the sources, I have to AGF on hook sourcing and questions of copyvio. Image license for the first-proposed image looks OK; it's not clear if OTRS has confirmed the permission for the alternative image of the sheep.
- My one reservation is a lack of citation footnotes for some passages in the article that appear to require them. Specifically, I see a need for citations for the "Summary" table entries about nerves III through XII, the "Ganglia" section, the second paragraph (the one with bullets) in "Cranial nerve columns", and the "note" about the facial nerve in the section "Exiting the skull". I recognize that the basis for this content is likely in the other Wikipedia articles that are hyperlinked, but Wikipedia can't cite itself as an authority. --Orlady (talk) 22:40, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- The article has been updated quite a bit recently, and is going for GA status. Maybe we should wait that out, else I have perfect sources for these statements in Moore's clinical anatomy, should I add a citation to each table or is it sufficient to add on in the end of the entire table? -- CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 15:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- The Clinical significance header still has several unreferenced paragraphs. The table could be cited with just one reference. But you will have to consider whether more will be added to the table later. The only likely addition would be columns, in which case it could make sense to add the ref tags to the column headers. However some functions are referenced to different places, so probably each other functions should have its own reference. The Course section also has no reference. The Nuclei section does not mention the Terminal Nerve which perhaps connects to septal nuclei (not a DYK issue though). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- The article has been updated quite a bit recently, and is going for GA status. Maybe we should wait that out, else I have perfect sources for these statements in Moore's clinical anatomy, should I add a citation to each table or is it sufficient to add on in the end of the entire table? -- CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 15:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- CFCF, this is an important article, but the nomination has been ongoing far too long, and cannot wait for a GA review. I'm going to allow another week for the major issues—primarily unreferenced paragraphs—to be addressed; if you need more time, please ask for it. (The other option is to close the review now, and start a new one when the article becomes a GA, but it could be a long wait, and the referenced needed that are mentioned below will need to be added regardless; I strongly advise finishing this now.) I can't imagine there isn't a reference available for the introductory Anatomy paragraph, and the final Terminology paragraph is unreferenced. The Nuclei section has only one reference for three paragraphs, and the final paragraph of Exiting the skull and first paragraph in Hearing and Balance are both unreferenced. Finally, I see that LT910001 has been quite active editing the article lately, so I've added a DYK credit. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:20, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Posting a final call on CFCF's talk page. As CFCF has been editing on Wikipedia over the past week, I'm allowing another 48 hours only to address these long-outstanding issues before I move to close this as unsuccessful, which would be a great shame. Note that even if this article later becomes a GA, the sourcing DYK requires will still need to be done if this is renominated at that time, so it may as well be done now. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:00, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- Great, good to know. Thank you. Will look for them. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Great. Thanks for adding me to the credits as well (although I would have appreciated a small ping earlier to let me know about this). If CFCF is busy, please feel free to ping me. --LT910001 (talk) 22:12, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks CFCF for your citations. I've added one citation and removed the second offending sentence, as I can't recall where I entered that. There's also the possibility that it was already there and some of my rearrangements brought it to the fore. As it doesn't have a citation, I've removed it. --LT910001 (talk) 10:41, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- Comment
This article has significantly expanded and is certainly worthy enough to get to DYK. That said, is there still a chance to modify the DYK? --LT910001 (talk) 10:49, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- Add "special senses" to the list of things supplied (that is pretty interesting IMO)
- Correct brain --> brainstem
- Clarify "it" in "and supply it with motor and sensory innervation?" to the face
- LT910001, please feel free to add an ALT hook below if you think a different wording would be better. (Please leave the original hook as it is, so we retain the history and original wording.) Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:35, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
OK. I propose a change to this, and invite other users to comment: I removed 'emerge from...' as I think it makes this too long, and for average readers, I think the special senses part is quite interesting: --LT910001 (talk) 00:43, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
- ALT1: ... that twelve pairs of cranial nerves (pictured) control facial expression, and transmit facial sensation and the special senses taste, hearing, balance, vision and smell?
- CFCF, are you okay with the proposed ALT1 hook? Do you have an alternate proposal of your own? BlueMoonset (talk) 21:01, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
- Ready for review now: needed of new ALT1 hook and of sourcing, to be sure issues raised by Orlady and Graeme Bartlett have been addressed. Also of new material added since, to make sure it's okay as well. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:12, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
- My concerns about lack of referencing and cranial nerve 0 have been addressed. So the article is referenced and to reliable sources. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Hook alt1 is covered in the article, all referenced. I cannot confirm the contents from the references supplied, but I can confirm from my own (Principles of Neural Science). However picture is not suitable for use in DYK as it is too small to see anything. Extra checks now include that the hook is short enough, and plagiarism checking from books and academic papers shows nothing. However this article is itself heavily plagiarized by others! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- Graeme Bartlett Hah, that's funny, I started expanding it only a few months ago, and did so being careful to avoid any copyvio/plagiarism. It'd be interesting to see some of the plagiarism seeing as it popped up so fast. I'd be happy if you posted the links on my talk-page. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 22:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
