Talk:Sublingua

Clarifying terms

From what I can tell, this structure is not well studied. In fact, leading veterinary experts for lemurs were surprised by the contents of this article as well as the fact that there were previously published sources that named and detailed the structure of the organ. However, there were some challenges in writing this article in regards to linking terms between primate and some of our anthropocentric anatomy articles, especially since none of the sources offer labeled diagrams for comparison. I will be working with veterinarians offline to confirm the details of this article, but I am hoping to get feedback from experts in human anatomy so that we can resolve any naming differences, ideally without violating WP:OR.

The key problems with linking and terminology involve two of the three parts of the sublingua: the plica sublingualis and plicae fimbriatae. You can read more about these specific terms at on pages 349 and 350 of Jones, 1918 as well as refer to (unlabeled) figures 2 and 5 in the same document.

From what I can tell from all of the sources I used in the Wiki article, the plica sublingualis, which is stated to be present in all primates (well-developed in simians and underdeveloped in lemurs), seems to correspond to the lingual frenulum in human anatomical terms. Another source seems to equate the plica sublingualis with the term "frenal lamella", with which I'm not familiar.

The plicae fimbriatae, on the other hand, seem to share the same name with the human anatomical structure, which is also called the fimbriated fold of tongue. Once again, there is another term, "fimbria linguae" that may also be the same thing. There is no such redirect on Wiki for this term, but translated, it means "fringe-like structure of the tongue"... which I assume is the plica fimbriata (or plural, plicae fimbriatae).

Can anyone verify this? – VisionHolder « talk » 20:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 21:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• I'll review this! MathewTownsend (talk) 21:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

review

• I've reviewed this article and made a few minor copy edits which you are free to change.[1]

The changes look excellent. Thanks for the ce and typo fixes. – VisionHolder « talk » 00:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• I have just one question. Why under "Literature cited" do some of the citations have an "edit" link to edit the citation? (I've never seen this before.)

Those citations use the templates {{cite doi}} or {{cite pmid}}. The templates are useful for standardizing and simplifying references between articles, and since I may be using these same sources for articles like Toothcomb or an upcoming article like Anatomy of lemurs. – VisionHolder « talk » 00:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• Otherwise, it is a great, informative little article - just right! MathewTownsend (talk) 22:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I still hope to provide better illustrations soon. But I figured this was good enough for GA. – VisionHolder « talk » 00:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose: clear and concise, correct spelling and grammar:

   B. Complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Provides references to all sources:

   B. Provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Main aspects are addressed:

   B. Remains focused:

4. Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

• Congratuations! Very nice! MathewTownsend (talk) 00:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Addition (old) source -- pre-FAC

Note to self—Review and possibly incorporate material from this source before submitting for FAC:

• Pocock, R. I. (1918). "On the external characters of the lemurs and of Tarsius". Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London 1918: 36–40.

– Maky ^« talk » 06:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)