User talk:Beth ohara

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Quadell 21:06, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Wikijunior Solar System Needs You

Danny Wool has challenged us to get Wikijunior Solar System out to hurricane evacuees by October 3, 2005. 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)

[edit] 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:

And bonus points for

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

[edit] 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)