Talk:Cervix/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Addressing GA1

Thanks to Tony the Tiger for his thorough review. I've made the following changes and renominated:--LT910001 (talk) 00:03, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Clarified and copy-edited numerous sections of the article
  • Removed or cited statements
  • Replaced several citations with a secondary source per WP:MEDRS
  • Added information about cervical contraception
  • Concatenated anatomical information about blood supply (...) into the 'structure' section.
  • Directly stated the cervix is a pathway for sperm.
  • Updated the cervical cancer information.
  • Made some copyedits per suggestions in the first GA
  • Updated the lead section

Post-GA gratuitous feedback

Some comments: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

  • I changed the first section name to Structure and location as we need to slot in somewhere that the supravaginal part lies behind the bladder and is separated from it by cellular tissue known as parametrium. The uterine arteries run through this. Also, the upper part of the cervix is covered by peritoneum posteriorly - this segment of the peritoneal cavity is the recto-uterine pouch and hence the rectum lies behind this, though there may be some ileum in the way too (all this from Gray's Anatomy, p. 1574 of my old 1967 copy...but I doubt it will have changed). Was going to put it in but felt it'd be prudent to figure where the best spot to put it in'd be.....
I've changed back to "Structure", per WP:MEDMOS#Anatomy, which is a fairly standard layout for almost all our anatomy articles. --LT910001 (talk) 03:38, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Also - the whole article is about the human cervix...I have no idea about other mammalian cervixes and how we cover it.....
Yep. Per WP:MEDMOS#Anatomy such a section would be placed in a subsection "Other animals" and, when necessary, with subsections relating either to the animals or to vertebrates/invertebrates. The reason that this is done in a separate section rather than throughout the entire article is because the vast majority of knowledge about cervix and sources relate to human anatomy. --LT910001 (talk) 03:38, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
  • The article also does not mention that the cervix has more connective and less muscle tissue than the rest of the uterus. This should be in the histology or structure section....
Thanks for mentioning this, please feel free to include it. My main aim in nominating for GA is that it represents a threshold I'd like to get popular anatomy articles above. For this reason I've been focused on broadness and accessibility rather than a completely comprehensive discussion. Anatomy articles are a very untended lot and there is a lot more basic work that I'd like to do on a whole swathe of articles to get them to a level other editors may wish to engage with. --LT910001 (talk) 03:38, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
I can see your rationale about buffing a wider range of articles to GA standard rather than spending a significant amount more time to buff fewer to FA. Often you get good GA reviewers, but at the end of the day there is often only one reviewer (this one got alot of feedback, which is a Good Thing). FA is good in that it applies an extra level of rigour and once you have a template you can apply some of the good advice to other articles. I am thinking this one could do with a Peer Review and then go off to FAC without too much bother, which'd be good in that it would give an improved template to work from to apply to other anatomy articles. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:31, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Peer Review

Look, I think the article is looking good and kudos to all who've gotten involved to date - I'm listing it at Peer Review - Wikipedia:Peer review/Cervix/archive1 - to try and help give it a shove to FAC. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:14, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Edits

I have closed this segment as a consensus was achieved in the interests of moving forward and focussing efforts on other areas. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:31, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Have reverted these edits [1] because

  1. Cancer is by definition invasive. Check out the definition by the NCI [2]. CIN is not cervical intraepithelial cancer but cervical intraepithelial neoplasm. This is why it is an N and not a C
  2. If we read about what the Template:Main is we find that "This template is used after the heading of the summary, to link to the sub-article that has been (or will be) summarised" This section is about the role of the cervix in childbirth it is not a summary of childbirth. Thus main article for it would be "Childbirth and the cervix"
  3. Does the HPV vaccine "combat" which implies treats HPV infection once establish? As far as I am aware the answer is no. If you have a high quality ref that shows otherwise happy to look at it. The evidence we do have is that the CDC says prevents HPV and the NCI and FDA also say prevents HPV infections Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:33, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Agree on removal of word invasive. Agree CIN not invasive but we're also trying to prevent that as well, so removal of invasive is warranted. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:44, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Am of two minds - I think I slightly prefer "combat" than "prevent" but can see case for both. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:44, 17 June 2014 (UTC) just striking this to clarify consensus on this one, I am happy with "prevent" as well. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I am not sure whether we need a main link to birth as linked in first sentence under heading anyway. Does seem a bit general. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:46, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Am of two minds whether we need "and screening" in title of "cancer" section. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:46, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Discussion is also taking place here [3] What every we do we need to base our decisions on sources. If you can find high quality sources that support "combat" I would consider it. I have not been able to find any. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:12, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
"prevent" is the correct encyclopaedic medical term on technical grounds, and it's also perfectly understandable to the general reader. Technically, it is primary prevention. Imo, "combat" is journalistic in style and should be avoided here. (I find the dialogue on the so-called "peer review" page too depressing to participate in, and so am posting here.) 86.128.169.211 (talk) 09:32, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Right, to clarify where we're at, we appear to have a consensus on "prevent HPV infection" in the intro and not using "invasive" to describe cancer. It appears as though folks agree on short sentences, a little longer than Jmh649's original versions but that he his willing to compromise a little here..? I am clarifying this as my impression is that maybe if we do have this then we close both this and the intro segment of the Peer Review at this point, and shift focus onto other areas. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:04, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, I am ok with this - did wonder whether too off topic but on the balance important enough to be here I think. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:04, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes a little longer is okay. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:32, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The current set of diagrams showing the four phases of dilation in the first stage of labour is nearly illegible/indecipherable

The image size is inadequate. Zooming the browser does not help. A new set of diagrams, or a larger version of the current set, is needed.

98.186.170.137 (talk) 09:31, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

(belatedly) yes I've just noticed this. Sadly, the original author is blocked, but will see what can be done about scaling it up later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Those diagrams have still not been superseded by something better. Does anyone who reads this have a suitable replacement that is superior to the current lousy set of images? 98.186.170.137 (talk) 03:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
A couple of points: Fred the Oyster is still very active on Commons (profile), which is the relevant project. More importantly, the image is a well-made vector SVG file, and should be cleanly viewable at any size. Here is a 2,000 px wide PNG version. I don't think the problem is the file itself so much as the media viewer's stubbornness. I can open the file in Inkscape and it looks crisp and clear regardless of nominal size or zoom level. I'll mess with it and see if I can't figure out what's going on. Otherwise, asking Fred or posting at the Commons:Graphic Lab is the next step. Grayfell (talk) 04:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm in over my head. I'v started a discussion here: Wikipedia:SVG help#Nominal size of vector-based SVG is too small. If anybody has any advice, or tips on good SVG tutorials, let me know. Grayfell (talk) 05:49, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

"Development" as a heading

One of the sub-sections is called "Development". Is this clear enough? Would it be better to call it "Embryology"? "Embryological development" is a bit longer, but perhaps clearer too? Snowman (talk) 13:55, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm, interesting. One is definitely more accessible to lay reader. Question is, is "embryology" more exact and necessary? Not sure....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:34, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
I have just noticed Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles#Anatomy which says that they use "Development". Any other suggestions? Snowman (talk) 21:31, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
WP:MEDSECTIONS states, "The following lists of suggested sections are intended to help structure a new article or when an existing article requires a substantial rewrite. Changing an established article simply to fit these guidelines might not be welcomed by other editors. The given order of sections is also encouraged but may be varied, particularly if that helps your article progressively develop concepts and avoid repetition."
In other words, use what best suits the article. We do not have to use the Development heading; the heading Embryology or Embryological development is just as sufficient, if not more so because it is more descriptive. All of these things mean the same thing in this case, so using one or the other is fine. Flyer22 (talk) 03:33, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Note: Snowmanradio has asked about the heading structure at WP:Anatomy. Flyer22 (talk) 15:01, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

We chose "Development" in WP:MEDMOS#Anatomy because "embryology" constrains itself to either pre-birth, weeks 0-8, or weeks 3-8, depending on your choice of definition. "Development" is more readily understandable and encompasses growth or development of said structure before and after birth, and I think we all agree things do not stop growing once a baby is born. Also using a standard heading makes it easier to work between articles and makes wikilinking easier, and as you state on WPANATOMY gives our articles a more professional feel. --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:29, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

LT910001 (Tom) (pinging you via WP:Echo because I don't know if you have put the Cervix article back on your WP:Watchlist), WP:MEDMOS#Anatomy currently states that the Development section is for "the embryological/foetal and early-life development of the structure." These sections, whether titled "Development" or something else, are usually about the anatomy before birth, not after birth. If it concerns material after birth, it's commonly in a different section, or it fits in that section because it's a minor aspect...or, if it's not already in a section titled "Development," that section could be validly retitled "Development" to better reflect the content. If it's just about embryology, I don't see any problem with the heading being specific in that regard. And like you stated, the embryology matter "depend[s] on your choice of definition." I noted at WP:Anatomy, "My whole point is that if something is better for the article, such as a clearer heading, we should go with that instead of exactly sticking with a guideline." I don't think that an editor should rigidly impose WP:MEDMOS#Anatomy on an article; often, there are nuances. WP:MEDSECTIONS is clear that rigidly imposing these layouts is not necessarily what is best for whatever article. I am not concerned with being uniform; I am concerned with what is best for whatever article in question. Flyer22 (talk) 22:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, Tom articulates a good reason (broader chronological context) for using development so that makes me happier to use that heading. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:22, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
The Development section in this case is about more than just embryological development; so that is the only reason that I see the "Development" heading as better than the "Embryology" or "Embryological development" headings in this case. Flyer22 (talk) 11:31, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
The other reason that I can see the "Development" heading as better is for the lay readers who don't know what embryology means; I'd wager that it's more likely to be a kid than an adult who doesn't know what it means, however. And either way, whether a kid or an adult, a lot of them will have heard of "embryo," remember that, and spot that in the word embryology or embryological. Flyer22 (talk) 11:44, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that Vaginal portion of cervix be merged into cervix. I think that the content in the former article can easily be explained in the context of the latter, and the cervix is of a reasonable size that the merging of the other will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:44, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done

uterine cervix vessels

                        Uterine cervix vessels

         Arteries penetrating the cervix are surrounded by tight muffs of anastomizing veins that are closely adjacent to the arteries(Fig. 1). In other cases, the arteries are located within the lumen of veins – "vessels within vessels" (Fig.2). Cervical arteries make up subendocervical convolutions (Fig.3). During pregnancy, smooth muscle "cushions" develop in the vessels (Fig.4). The cervix is pierced by a network of veins that divide the cervical tissue into separate stromal "lobules”(Fig.5).
         This peculiar vascular architecture might be important structural basis of the vascular hemostatic mechanism in the neck of the uterus triggered by labor. It prevents vessel rupture, hemorrhaging and amniotic fluid and air embolism during cervical dilatation. The venous network that passes through the cervix makes it easy for the separate stromal “lobules” of the cervix to move relative to each other during cervical dilatation.
                                             Reference

Prokopchook-Lyckbäck AV. Structural basis of the vascular hemostatic mechanism in the uterine cervix (Chernovsty-Eskilstuna). // Likars’ka sprava. – 2015. - (1134)3-4: 76-81. – Kiev (in English). PMID 26844463. 2: Prokopchook-Lyckbäck AV. ... Lik Sprava. 2015 Apr-Jun;(3-4):76-81. PMID:26827444[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]


Figure 1. Artery [1] in the wall of the cervix is surrounded by a compact ring of dilated veins [2] that are closely adjacent. Hematoxylin-eosin stain. X 35.



Figure 2. Arteries [1] in the cervix dangle into the lumen of the vein [2] on a mesangium [3]. Hematoxylin-eosin stain. X 90.


Figure 3. Subendocervical arterial [1] convolute divided by wide sinusoidal veins [2]. Endocervix [3]. Staned in van Gieson’s method. X 35.


Figure 4. Subendothelial smooth muscle "cushions" [1] in the wall of the cervical artery. Staned in Mallory’s method. X 200.



Figure 5. Stromal "lobules"[1] of the cervix that are located in the cells of a network created by mutually anastomizing thin-walled veins [2]. Stained in van Gieson’s method. X 90.

Name used in the lead

With this edit, Quercus solaris changed "The cervix or cervix uteri (Latin: neck of the uterus) is" to "The uterine cervix (cervix uteri, Latin: neck of the uterus), usually just called the cervix in context, is."

And with this edit, Quercus solaris added the Cervix (disambiguation) page he or she created.

I reverted the name change twice because the WP:Common name for this topic is simply "cervix"; I see no need for a qualifier at the beginning of the lead. I also disagree with the creation of the Cervix (disambiguation) page. We typically do not create disambiguation pages like that. See WP:Disambiguation. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:42, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi. In anatomy, the word cervix means "neck", and there are various body parts called a cervix, from the neck (hence "cervical vertebrae") to the uterine cervix to the bladder cervix. You can have your lede changes here. As for the disambiguation page, we do indeed create them, for countless terms. Quercus solaris (talk) 19:22, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Quercus solaris, in this case, there is no doubt that just about any reader who types "cervix" will be looking for this article. In a case like this, we do not create the type of disambiguation page you created. The page you created, where neck, uterine cervix, cervix vesicae urinariae, cervix cornus dorsalis medullae spinalis, and cervix dentis are listed; the articles are not even titled by those names. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:17, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
And speaking of the Neck article, this is not what I would call good use of MOS:BOLD. I'll address the disambiguation page you created at a later date. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:21, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cervix. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:51, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cervix. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:36, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cervix/Archive_2&oldid=855958527"