Beth ohara

Nice work! I'm still working on the article though. I love you!

Quadell 21:06, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Wikijunior Solar System Needs You

Danny Wool has challenged us to get Wikijunior Solar System out to hurricane evacuees by October 32005. This is going to be tough!

You expressed interest in WikiJunior. Would you be willing now to join the push to get Wikijunior Solar System completed? Come see Wikijunior Solar System!

Thanks --SV Resolution(Talk) 17:58, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Anatomy articles

Greetings, Beth. Great job on the Muscles of the hip images! They look great!

As you requested, here are some anatomy articles that are severely lacking, and that could the attention of an expert like yourself:

• Abdominal external oblique muscle
• Adductor muscles of the hip
• Brachialis muscle
• Cartilaginous joint
• Fascia
• Gluteal muscles
• Gluteal tuberosity
• Greater trochanter - right now it's a redirect to hip, which is probably not ideal.
• Hamstring
• Iliopsoas group - which needs to be merged with Hip flexors somehow
• Lateral rotator group - is this the best name for the article?
• Longus capitis muscle
• Muscles of the shoulder
• Patella
• Rotatores muscle
• Subtalar joint - a missing subjoint in the ankle
• Talocrural joint - also missing
• Teres minor muscle
• Tibialis posterior muscle
• Trochlea

And bonus points for

• Femur - There's some material there, but it needs significant reorganization.
• Human musculoskeletal system - currently three sentences
• List of tendons of the human body - We have a List of muscles of the human body and a List of bones of the human skeleton, but not a list of tendons. There's not even a Category:Tendons.

Good luck! – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 04:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Anatomical terms article

Beth, many thanks for your contribution of the article human anatomical terms. Unfortunately it covers some ground which was previously covered in two other articles: Anatomical terms of motion and Anatomical terms of location. Another user (User:Sarah crane) has suggested that these articles be merged, and I have posted the following on her talk pages:

Sarah, many thanks for looking at these articles. You suggest that some of the three articles Anatomical terms of location, Anatomical terms of motion and Human anatomical terms should perhaps be merged. I have been actively involved with the first (which indeed was itself merged recently), and aware of the second, but did not know about the third until you suggested the merge.

In fact, User:Beth ohara's article (Human anatomical terms) is extremely recent. You suggest that it might be the "better written and more scholarly", but I am not certain this is the case. Beth's article as it stands contains several inaccurate points, and several more which are slightly incorrect. It (currently) bears the hallmarks of "single author syndrome". That said, most of what she writes is valuable and valid. The other articles may be less readable, but they are factually excellent.

My problem with anatomy is that my undergraduate soul is that of an anatomist (and comparative vertebrate anatomist), yet my current job is that of a clinician. Unfortunately, clinical terms of anatomy (used routinely by doctors in hospitals and clinics) often differ quite markedly from those of the strict anatomical text.

I am certain that Beth's article adds much to the (human/clinical) detail which I had attempted to put into the Anatomical terms of location article (with little success). I would have preferred that Beth had added her information to the two existing articles rather than starting from scratch.

Any merging of articles would need to take into account the requirement of an article to be useful for human anatomy, as well as comparative anatomy (see skull, especially its recent evolution, for a good example of how an article which was previously all human-oriented, has been (rightly) changed to include other species). Further, incorporation of clinical terms as well as dry anatomical terms would be helpful.

I think leaving the two earlier articles as they are and splitting Beth's article between them would be my preferred solution. (As of now, Beth's article is linked from fewer pages than the others). Perhaps better still would be to merge them all into one super "Anatomical terms" article.

I have cross-posted this to the talk page on Anatomical terms of location, and onto Beth's talk pages. I think there is plenty of good material here, and the potential for making things a lot better.

Best wishes, Preacherdoc 20:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I assure you no offence was intended in my remarks, and I think that your article contains many useful and valuable points.

Please leave a message on any of these articles, or on my talk page. Best wishes. Preacherdoc 20:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

No offense taken at all. I think it would be great if the articles were merged. I wrote this as a learning experience and wanted to offer it for use on wikipedia. It sounds like you have the background and expertise to merge these articles into something useful. I'm interested in knowing what is inaccurate so I can learn from it. What mistakes did you find? Thank you for your feedback. Beth ohara 03:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Not so much mistakes as slightly incorrect emphasis. From your paragraph "Body landmarks" the first sentence describes the Latin names for several components of the body. I think "nasus" is the word for nose, "os" for mouth, and "cervix" the word for neck. I am not certain, but I think the chin may be "mentum" rather than "mentis". This is nitpicking. You go on, however, "On the trunk of the body, the chest is referred to as the thoracic area. The shoulder in general is the acromial, while the curve of the shoulder is the deltoid." Sticking with your previous line, the chest is the "thorax". "Thoracic" is the adjective. Likewise, "acromial" is an adjective, not a noun. I wouldn't refer to the shoulder as the "acromion", as this (for me) refers only to the bony tip of the shoulder which is part of the scapula. I would use "shoulder region". There is nothing drastically wrong with saying "acromial region", but to my ears, it's not quite right. If I call my car a "horseless carriage", that name is technically and historically justifiable, but somehow doesn't quite fit any more.

To take your adjective thing a little further, but without (I hope) labouring the point, "The ankle is the tarsus and tarsal, and the heel is the calcaneus or calcaneal." doesn't read quite right. I would write: "The ankle is the tarsus (adjective tarsal), and the heel is the calcaneum (adjective calcaneal)."

The body cavities thing sounds very artificial to me, especially the notion of a dorsal and ventral cavity. The introduction to my textbook of invertebrate anatomy points out that the division of the animal kingdom into those with vertebrae and those without is purely arbitrary and serves no useful purpose. It argues that dividing the kingdom into arthropods and non-arthropods would be equally justifiable. Likewise, dividing the body into a dorsal and ventral cavity seems like an arbitrary thing, with no reasonable anatomical, structural or clinical justification. When I think to myself how I conceptualise the human body, I tend to think of a cranium, a thorax and an abdominopelvis, with a musculoskeletal system sort of wrapped around. This isn't necessarily right, but it's just how I do it, and it seems at least equally justifiable to the system you describe.

Many parts of your text are perfectly fine, but duplicate, or almost duplicate, information from the two existing articles.

As I have mentioned elsewhere, pure anatomy and its terminology is often as dry as dust. Usage of more accessible terms (like "forehead" instead of "frons") is, I think, perfectly valid for most purposes. Despite that, I think that technical validity should be pursued rigorously, which is unfortunately why I get all fussy.

Best wishes, Preacherdoc 11:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of International Enneagram Association

A tag has been placed on International Enneagram Association requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company or corporation, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for companies and corporations.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. KurtRaschke (talk) 04:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)