@CFCF: Just pinging you to let you know I've started to review this article. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 03:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seppi333Thanks for taking up the review. How's it going? --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:27, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@CFCF & Tom (LT): My apologies for the very late reply/follow-up... I've been really really really busy outside wikipedia for the past few weeks. Other than that, things are fine. :) I'll finish this GA review over the next day or two and indicate any problems which need to be fixed, if any, at that time. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 03:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Lead: the lead is very short. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done expanded. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:58, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Refs: Overall I think the article is well-sourced. Most refs are MEDRS-quality and most of the content is cited. There are two statements I feel like should be referenced though since they're specific technical claims. These are:
In Imaging: "In rare cases, the nerve may be destroyed with either alcoholic or radiofrequency ablation."
In Nerve latency testing: "Prolonged motor latency can be an indicator of the extent of idiopathic or obstetric neurological damage, and can provide some indication regarding potential recovery or response to surgery."
Is "each side" referring to each side of the perinium in the sentence "The pudendal nerve is a paired structure, with one on each side, termed the left and right pudendal nerves respectively"? I'd suggest specifying the structure it surrounds to for clarity.
I'm not sure what S5 refers to in a subsequent sentence: "Sometimes dorsal rami of the first sacral nerve contribute fibers to the pudendal nerve, and even more rarely S5."
Not done Thanks for your observation. This refers to the fifth sacral nerve (which is wikilinked at the beginning of the sentence). I think that using this technical terminology in the 'variations' section of the anatomy article is probably acceptable. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone not familiar with that contraction is going to be lost. I've supplied a template to make it readable to a layperson. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 01:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In Function
I'm not eniterely sure what the bolded phrase means in this context: "By providing sensation to the penis and the clitoris, the pudendal nerve is responsible for the afferent component of penile erection and clitoral erection."
Not done This term is wikilink to explain it. What it means is that erection has two neural components, an afferent component that conveys the stimuli responsible for erection, and the efferent component which causes the penis/clitoris to become erect. The pudendal nerve is responsible for the afferent component. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Er... my bad; wasn't a misunderstanding of meaning/definition - just context. It slipped my mind that it innervated the penis/clitoris. I'm ok with this as is.
That's all I could really see that needs improvement after going through the article. I'll pass it once these are addressed. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 08:52, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply] @CFCF and LT910001: Just letting you two know I finished my review; it just needs the above fixes and it passes as a GA. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 08:55, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll get to it shortly. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:17, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thanks for taking up this review, Seppi333, I hope I've adequately addressed your concerns (and some more to boot -- expanded the lead and added a further citation). --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:58, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(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
^ 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.
^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.
Not done Thanks for your observation. This refers to the fifth sacral nerve (which is wikilinked at the beginning of the sentence). I think that using this technical terminology in the 'variations' section of the anatomy article is probably acceptable. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Pass