Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Snowmanradio (talk | contribs) at 21:11, 29 May 2014 (comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: 97198 (talk · contribs) 10:30, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi there! I'll be reviewing this article. I've had a look at the previous review and it looks like most of those issues have been resolved, so hopefully it'll pass this time. I've just done a copyedit f the article to fix minor issues but here are some other issues I've found:

• "Because of this change, known as metaplasia, this part of the cervix is at increased risk of cancer." — need to clarify what "this part of the cervix" is referring to, as it is unclear (I assume it's the transformation zone).
  •  Done --LT910001 (talk) 23:51, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
• Under "Structure", you describe the lymphatic drainage routes for the "lateral cervix", then the "posterior and lateral cervix", and then the "posterior section of the cervix" — which is correct? What about the anterior cervix?
  •  Not done A question I also had when reading the source. --LT910001 (talk) 23:51, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
• "The size of the cervix decreases over time relative to the uterus" — I get what you mean, but it kind of sounds like the cervix is literally shrinking, so do you think you could word it more clearly?
  •  Done clarified. --LT910001 (talk) 23:51, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
• "when the endocervix is exposed to the harsh acidic environment of the vagina it undergoes metaplasia to squamous epithelium" — should briefly explain why/when the endocervix would be exposed as such, since it's not intuitive.
  •  Doing... I will look this up. --LT910001 (talk) 23:57, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
• "The number of past vaginal deliveries is a strong factor in influencing how rapidly the cervix is able to dilate in labour" — should mention that dilation/labour is typically faster in multips.
  •  Not done Not so. According to the sources it is the number of vaginal deliveries, rather than the number of viable pregnancies at term, that affect this. --LT910001 (talk) 23:51, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
• The "Mucus plug" image should have a more descriptive caption, since there's a lot more than the plug pictured.
  •  Done I've removed this image, as I don't think it was contributing much. --LT910001 (talk) 23:51, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
• "During the proliferative phase, the mucus is thin and serous to allow sperm to enter the uterus while during the secretory phase, the mucus is thick to prevent sperm from interfering with the already fertilized egg" — the average reader probably won't know what the proliferative and secretory phases are, so these should be explained.
  •  Not done The menstrual cycle is mentioned in the previous sentence and wikilinked. Is this sufficient? --LT910001 (talk) 23:51, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
• "This counters a weakly founded theory put forward that the convulsing cervix, during orgasm, draws semen into the uterus. This upsuck theory has been generally accepted for some years, although there does not appear to be any evidence." — this is a pretty big claim, and it would be great if you could source it to a medical textbook, which would be more reliable than a single journal article.
  •  Doing... A good point and I will get back to you on this. --LT910001 (talk) 23:57, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
• Under "Clinical significance" there are a number of diseases involving the cervix apart from cancer that could be discussed — these include cervical stenosis, cervicitis and cervical agenesis. It may also be worth commenting on pre-cancerous lesions like cervical polyps and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia.
  •  Doing... I will add a reference to these. --LT910001 (talk) 23:57, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
• "An alternate approach, a LEEP procedure using a heated loop of platinum to excise a patch of cervical tissue" — an alternate approach to what? Visualising the cervix? Examining? Biopsying?
  •  Doing... I will integrate this when adding the above. --LT910001 (talk) 23:57, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
• A minor point, but some of the books used as references don't have capitalised titles, which they should.
  •  Question: This is a result of the automatic template-filler. I have always found this somewhat confusing, as books in real life are not always written in title case. Is there a relevant policy or guideline I will be able to use for future reference? --LT910001 (talk) 23:57, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
• Is there a reason for including the "Menstrual cycle" template at the bottom of the page? It doesn't seem particularly relevant to me.
  •  Done Thanks for pointing this out. Removed. --LT910001 (talk) 23:51, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll put the review on hold for now because I don't think it'll be too hard to fix up these issues. Feel free to contact me for any help or questions! 97198 (talk) 10:30, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and taking up the review. I will address these in coming days, and look forward to working with you to get this promoted. --LT910001 (talk) 21:29, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm halfway through to responding and have marked with  Doing... things which I will get to shortly. --LT910001 (talk) 23:57, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

• Actually the GA1 was a clear fail. I have partly re-written the introduction because is was badly written, amateurish, and factually wrong in parts. The very basic anatomy has not even been extracted correctly from Gray's Anatomy for Students, which is the book given as the relevant in-line reference. Of course, my version is not perfect, but my edits have helped to iron out some serious problems. In my opinion this article has not been prepared adequately to be a GA candidate, and I would support a quick fail. Snowman (talk) 21:08, 29 May 2014 (UTC)