Talk:Recurrent laryngeal nerve

Recurrent laryngeal nerve 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 13, 2014. (Reviewed version).

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.

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

Veterinary Medicine[edit]

Under "Veterinary Medicine" - "In Veterinary medicine, 'roars' refers to a deficit in the left recurrent laryngeal nerve causing characteristic stenuous sounds upon inspiration."

The word "stenuous" is the wrong word. Horses make "stertorous" (snoring) sounds when working hard if they have this deficit - or they make the "roaring" sound when doing "strenuous" exercise...but which? Paulburnett (talk) 16:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Under "Path" - "It is referred to as "recurrent" because the branches of the nerve innervate the laryngeal muscles in the neck through a rather circuitous route: they descend into the thorax before rising up between the trachea and esophagus to reach the neck."

The reason for this circuitous route is to do with evolution - the nerve originated from the nerve used to control gills in fish. Cameronmccloud (talk) 15:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed "However, the existence of fibres innervating other structures such as the Cardiac plexus along its length gives reason other than purely an evolutionary blunder for the seemingly nonsensical route." - because this is not a logical argument or statement of fact. That is, the innervating fibres are located in such a way as to enhance the argument for evolution - while this quote purports to assert the opposite. If it is meant to convey anything other than a contra-evolution position, it needs a serious re-write. To be clear - as an argument against evolution it is nonsense. As support for evolution it is written in a horrific fashion. Riluve (talk) 17:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think by viewing mammals as "one size fits all" one may discover the answer for the beauty of this design, for if the laryngeal nerve went straight to the larynx the Lion would not be able to pull it's larynx into it's chest cavity in order to roar.Johncart2 (talk) 20:23, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me very unelegant, and thus not "beautiful", to endow all the many tens of thousands of living and extinct species descended from the common ancestral fish in question with an unnecessarily circuitous nerve just to allow one of them to have a mobile larynx, something that could presumably have been achieved by other means. Perhaps idiosyncratic human notions of beauty are not the best criteria for judging biological structures. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.201.110.36 (talk) 10:09, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What i think the article would benefit from more than arguments over subjective stuff would be inclusion of a more objective inclusion along the lines of "Assuming no function for the seeming detour of the recurrent laryngeal nerve the current belief within evolutionary science is that...." Surely evolutionists could accept that if there was some function found then it would produce a modification to the theory. Evolutionary though is always changing to best fit the facts presented, yet this is not accounted for in the direct claims the article makes. Wuku (talk) 21:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well the Lion is pretty high up the food chain, not that makes it more important than any other species, though I do find it a very beautiful animal, for many reasons including it's elegance - while I know my thoughts are subjective the view of God's design being inelegant rather than beautiful is also. This is in no way meant to be a argument just another point of view to consider in the definitive scientific explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johncart2 (talk • contribs) 08:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't understand why the evolution section is included. While the discussion about the different path of the nerve in different species is factual and potentially useful information, terms like "extreme detour" and "wrong side of the heart" reek of opinion, the link to evolution is speculative, and the assertion that this disproves intelligent design is scientifically unsound. Furthermore, how does a popular book by Dr. Dawkins qualify as a valid citation? Is there no peer-reviewed scientific article that supports these claims? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.192.32.160 (talk) 05:20, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These terms are not speculative, as mentioned above, the reason for this circuitous route is to do with evolution - the nerve originated from the nerve used to control gills in fish. Dr. Dawkins is an academically published evolutionary biologist, this component is mainstream evolutionary science.(talk) 05:20, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ICS related references[edit]

I saw reference to this article at WP:RSN, and as I posted over there, do not believe the ICS references to qualify as MEDRS. Discuss here please. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 10:31, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The ICR article is certainly not WP:MEDRS and the references cited in the article seem to be cherry-picked to support a fringe. Ochiwar (talk) 11:35, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The synthesis apparent in the removed text was also inappropriate for an encyclopedia. -- Scray (talk) 13:51, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its a cherry picked fringe claim. Per WP:ONEWAY we only mention fringe theories and their claims if there has been a substantial connection of them to the topic in the reliable sources. There is no such substantial connection. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:01, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Seppi333 (talk · contribs) 02:22, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria[edit]

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.^[1]

Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);^[2] and

(c) it contains no original research.

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;^[3] and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

^[4]

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

^[5]

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.^[6]

Discussion[edit]

Overall, the article looks good. Just needs 1 minor tweak (source addition) and then it satisfies GA criteria. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 03:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking this review, Seppi333, sorry I have taken so long to respond. We inherited the sentence, and as I can't find any sources to support it (I think the contributor may have intended to refer to vagus nerve damage), I have removed the offending sentence. LT910001 (talk) 14:40, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review[edit]

Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	Sufficient with the noted typos addressed (see edit history).	Pass
(b) (MoS)	Made MOS:NBSP, MOS:NDASH, WP:MOSNUM, and word-symbol consistency fixes. Note: Not requiring this fix: there's currently a mix of American and British English, as noted in the automated PR.	Pass

Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	~~Fix the {{citation needed}} tag at the end of Recurrent laryngeal nerve#Injury.~~	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	Cited sources are reliable and sources for medical claims satisfy WP:MEDRS. (Excluding the issue with the CN tag noted in (2a))	Pass
(c) (original research)	No synth or OR.	Pass

Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	Coverage seems okay - nothing seems lacking.	Pass
(b) (focused)	Adequate scope.	Pass

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
No apparent WP:POV issues.	Pass

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
Obvioiusly stable.	Pass

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	All images have an appropriate free licence.	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	Pass after minor copyedits per WP:ALT.	Pass

Result[edit]

Result	Notes
Pass	This article looks like a GA based upon my assessment of the article and interpretation of the criteria. Well done! Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ \| Maintained)

Additional Notes[edit]

^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

[1] Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.

[2] Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.

[3] This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.

[4] Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.

[5] Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.

[6] The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]