User talk:Tom (LT): Difference between revisions
Baffle gab1978 (talk | contribs) →return: notify of requested GOCE copy-edit to Cardiac output |
Baffle gab1978 (talk | contribs) →Cardiac output: copy-edit done |
||
Line 62: | Line 62: | ||
==[[Cardiac output]]== |
==[[Cardiac output]]== |
||
{{ |
{{GOCEtb|article=Cardiac output|sign=Another editor has alraedy done a partial c/e on this one, I'll do my best but it might take a while. Also, I'm not a medical person so I won't be able to correct any facts. Cheers, [[User:Baffle gab1978|Baffle gab1978]] ([[User talk:Baffle gab1978|talk]]) 02:47, 10 June 2015 (UTC)}} |
Revision as of 02:47, 10 June 2015
Please ping me ({{u}}) if you'd like me to contribute in a discussion on an article talk page. WikiProject Anatomy NewsletterWP:Anatomy quarterly update (#3) Hello WP:Anatomy participant! This is the third quarterly update, documenting what's going on in WikiProkect Anatomy, news, current projects and other items of interest. I'd greatly value feedback on this, and if you think I've missed something, or don't wish to receive this again, please leave a note on my talkpage or remove your name from the mailing list
Anatomical terminology is an essential component to all our articles. It is necessary to describe structures accurately and without ambiguity. It can also be extremely confusing and, let's face it, it's likely you too were confused too before you knew what was going on ("It's all Greek to me!" you may have said, fairly accurately). In the opinion of this editor, it's very important that we try hard to describe anatomy in a way that is both technically accurate and accessible. The majority of our readers are lay readers and will not be fluent in terminology. Anatomy is a thoroughly interesting discipline, but it shouldn't be 'locked away' only to those who are fluent in the lingo – exploring anatomy should not be limited by education, technical-level English fluency, or unfamiliarity with its jargon. Anatomical terminology is one barrier to anatomical literacy. Here are four ways that we can help improve the readability of our anatomical articles.
This essay is provided in full on WP:ANATSIMPLIFY. This has been transcluded to the talk pages of all active WP:ANATOMY users. To opt-out, leave a message on the talkpage of Tom (LT) or remove your name from the mailing list Your development ideaThanks for thinking about what I wrote. There might be a place for a rewritten development section at the end, but I need to see what is now written on the Brainstem page. Let me work on editing the other sections so that the entire page reads well, and is consistent. Then I can embellish with Development and Figures. Really, to understand the Development issue, a figure is essential. And I keep staring at the Extracranial course figures that are there - just not sure what to do with them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anatomyczar (talk • contribs) 14:58, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
edit boxTom: I didn't know that. I will use the box. Thanks and thanks for the support. Wikipedia anatomy will be my retirement project. I am trying to recruit other anatomists. I have an editorial about Wikipedia and Anatomy that will be published in Clinical Anatomy. If you send me an email address I will email you a pdf version. Anatomyczar (talk) 12:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC) Template queryHi Tom, wondered what was happening on the Ventricular system template - i added fourth ventricle recently as its absence is marked; it had been agreed to merge fourth ventricle with the ventricular system template but this has not happened. Is it waiting to be merged or been forgotten? Cheers --Iztwoz (talk) 16:44, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
returnSorry for the delay to your posts. I have had other projects to work on but now will return to the cranial nerve entries in Wiki. I already see that there is some minor editing to do at and I agree with you about brain and brain stem. Joel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.164.210.185 (talk) 12:07, 4 June 2015 (UTC) |