Talk:Epiglottis/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: ManfromButtonwillow (talk · contribs) 19:07, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I’ve not performed a GAN review before, but have been lurking for quite a long time and believe this is an important process on Wikipedia. I chose your article as my first because it is simple, well contained, and because anatomy is something I at least took a class on, albeit many years ago.. Your patience is appreciated if I make any missteps..

Criteria 1b:

The lead should be a summary of the article, and as such the last sentence referencing taste buds on the epiglottis—while interesting—should probably be moved to another section. Either “Structure” or “Function”.

 Done good point. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:58, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done have also integrated some of the clinical significance + slightly more of the history section. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:58, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

The footnote clarifying that the leaf shape referred to is that of purslane.. may be better incorporated into the text, or removed. If it is included, I might like to see the sentence restructured. Something like “it has been described by Grey’s anatomy as being shaped like a leaf of purslane, and [...]”

 Done was weighing up how to address this, but have placed it back in the text. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:58, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Criteria 1a

“The epiglottis forms a space between itself and the tongue called the vallecula.” Suggest rewording to “The space formed between the epiglottis and the tongue is called the vallecula”, or something along those lines. The phrasing used may be standard in anatomical context.. if so I don’t have a strong opinion on it. It just read funny to me since it seems to assign causality to the epiglottis for forming the space, rather than passively acknowledge that a space exists between it and the tongue, and that the space has a name.

 Done This one made me laugh, you're very right. It is very odd to put it in the active voice. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:58, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

I’m guessing that the “(in Estonian)” parenthetical has a meaning that could be confusing to the average reader.. including myself. Would it be possible to clarify what this means?

 Question: Sorry, I can't find "(In Estonian)" or "(In [another language])", could you please confirm which area you're talking about? --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:58, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done Found it. Had a typo when using a template. That was indeed confusing. --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:11, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

I would wikilink non-keratinized.

 Done --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:58, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

 Question: I'm a little rusty with my editing... the way I have done things feels quite clumsy - am trying to strike a balance between something a lay reader can understand (several layers of flat cells) vs. the common technical terms (stratified squamous epithelia). Any ideas? --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:58, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

That’s a difficult one. I’m personally in favor of making articles readable to the layperson, but I don’t believe that wikipedia articles, in general, shy away from using appropriate and precise technical language. The way you’ve handled it here is about as good of a compromise as any I can think of without going into a detailed (and off-topic) explanation breaking down the meaning of the technical terms. I’ll leave it up to you if you decide to remove or modify the lay-person wording, but of course the precise terms would be required to stay. I would keep the term non-keratinized rather than use “without keratin”. Perhaps wiki-linking the full phrase “non-keratinized stratified squamous epithelia”, but have it piped to the stratified squamous epithelia page (which addresses the difference between keratinized and non-keratinized tissues). Non-keratinized stratified squamous epithelia ManfromButtonwillow (talk) 12:48, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done have improved the wording using the piped link as suggested. Am not a fan of 'non-keratinised' as it is just that much harder to understand, and in my opinion there is no strong reason to use the specific formulation 'non-keratinised', so I have used a pipe link instead.--Tom (LT) (talk) 22:58, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

“It is likely that during swallowing the hyoid bone and the larynx move upwards and forwards, which increases passive pressure from the back of the tongue; because the ariepiglottic muscles contract; because of the passive weight of the food pushing down; and because of contraction of laryngeal and because of contraction of thyroarytenoid muscles.” It isn’t entirely clear if these are intended to be competitive theories of how the epiglottis moves or complementary. I would rework this section to improve clarity.

“In many languages, the epiglottis is not essential for producing sounds. In some languages, the epiglottis is used to produce epiglottal consonant speech sounds, though this sound-type is rather rare.” Small thing, but it makes more sense to me to invert the order of these two sentences. Highlight that it is used in some languages to produce sounds first, then note that it is rare and that many languages do not require the use of the epiglottis. Perhaps a couple examples of languages that require its use would be interesting, if you’re inclined to include some.

 Not done I tend to write like this - in pyramidal format, providing context and what is common first, then moving succesively to rarer topics. I feels it's important to orientate the reader, otherwise things can rapidly get confusing. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:58, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough, the logic makes sense to me. ManfromButtonwillow (talk) 12:48, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

In the “inflammation” section, pharynx is wikilinked redundantly, but racemic epinephrine, sympathomimetic bronchodilator, and aerosol are not. On that note, check for redundant wiki linking. I see a couple examples, but there may be others.

 Partly done good point. I've simplified the sentence and reversed the wikilink situation. I don't think aerosolised needs or is relevant enough to need a wikilink of its own, so I haven't done that.--Tom (LT) (talk) 07:58, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Makes sense! ManfromButtonwillow (talk) 12:48, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

“The incidence of epiglottitis has decreased significantly in countries where vaccination against Haemophilus influenzae is administered“. I think this sentence would be better placed after the first sentence of this section, where H. influenzae is mentioned as the principle cause of Epiglottitis. I believe that using the shorthand H. influenzae after the first mention would be appropriate.

 Not done this is deliberate and is reflective of the way I write. Clinical topics I cover in order of definition, symptoms, pathophysiology and management. Anatomy in particular can get very confusing if things are out of order (hence why I try and clearly divide structural and functional information) so I won't be doing this. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:58, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Very well, not a problem from my perspective. ManfromButtonwillow (talk) 12:48, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

“It also has Greek roots”. I’m sure this is a reference to the etymology, but I’d recommend clarifying this, and also provide a breakdown of the Greek origin and root meanings.

 Doing... good point. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:58, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:11, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Criteria 2:

Two small things, there is a citation needed tag, and one sentence does not have a reference (“ Behind the root of the tongue is an epiglottic vallecula which is an important anatomical landmark in intubation.”)

 Done --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:11, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Otherwise everything seems to be cited to reliable sources.

Images all appear to be appropriately licensed.

Criteria 3:

The article covers all areas required per the anatomy MOS and does not contain extraneous information, although as mentioned before, some expansion on the etymology of the word would be appropriate.

Edit: the article doesn’t have any comparative anatomy. A brief search revealed a number of important and interesting differences between the human epiglottis and many other animals. I think including some of the highlights would be important to cover the “broad in scope” criteria.ManfromButtonwillow (talk) 19:32, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

 Doing... Nuts, you're very right. I am moving in the next week so will try and include this information in the next week or two. Thank you for picking this up. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:58, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done unfortunately I'm unable to access good enough zoological anatomy textbooks to paint a greater picture here, but there doesn't seem to be that much variation in the composition or purpose of the epiglottis in mammals. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:58, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

General agreement, but based on what I could find. I think it’s worth mentioning a few of the differences in other animals. I leave it up to you as the primary editor to incorporate what makes sense to you and to leave out what doesn’t:

•The positioning of the epiglottis makes rodents, including rabbits, obligate nose breathers.[1][2]

•Although taste buds are present on the epiglottis of humans, they are much more abundant in rodents[3]

•Rodents have a ventral pouch posterior to the epiglottis that is not present in humans.[4]

•The horizontal position of the epiglottis in bonobos has been hypothesized as being a possible source of vocalizations in that species [5]

•This article (in the discussion section) has an interesting overview of the “typical” position of the epiglottis in mammals, and contrasts that with the position in adult humans. This descent of the epiglottis as humans age may be related to the development of human speech. [6]

If there are articles you need access to, please let me know, I can usually get ahold of them. ManfromButtonwillow (talk) 19:30, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

 Doing... Thanks, I will consider and incorporate some of these into the final article, particularly the first few review sources - and thank you for providing links. I am worried about using the results of the final two studies because they are primary sources but will consider incorporating things in the discussion sections relating to reviews of past literature. --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:43, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:19, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I’ve done a little more reading and also see that the epiglottis can play a significant role in some cases of obstructive sleep apnea. I’m a little fuzzy on the distinction between the “broad in scope” criteria of good articles, and the “comprehensive” criteria of featured articles.. but this information might be relevant. You could push back and I won’t put up a fight though. [7] ManfromButtonwillow (talk) 12:48, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done good catch; have included a short mention. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:58, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Break 2

Criteria 4:

Neutrality is not an issue in this article.

Criteria 5:

The article is stable, no edit wars.

Criteria 6:

The article is illustrated by six images. Captions and licensing are fine, although I would remove the period in the caption reading “ Epiglotic cartilage.” All images add something to the article.

 Done I have also corrected the type (epiglotic --> epiglottic) --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:58, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done have also trimmed an image or two and improved some captions. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:58, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Status

Article is on hold for the time being. Thank you, ManfromButtonwillow (talk) 19:07, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for taking up this review. I can't promise I can respond every day, but I will try and acknowledge your reviews comments within a couple of days. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:09, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Also, well met! Reviewing articles is great fun, thoroughly educational, and you have a significant impact on the encyclopedia. I feel very fortunate to be be your first :). --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:10, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Tom! Likewise, responses may be delayed a bit. Looking forward to working on this article together :) ManfromButtonwillow (talk) 18:43, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

@ManfromButtonwillow thanks for your patients. Have responded to the above articles. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:58, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Hey Tom, it all looks good, but I have responded to you regarding comparative anatomy. I feel that the section really should be expanded to include some of the major differences between the human and non-human epiglottis. I provided sources that I hope will be helpful. I could not find any other significant differences.ManfromButtonwillow (talk) 19:30, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for finding those, ManfromButtonwillow. I have included what I feel is appropriate. --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:19, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks @Tom (LT)! I appreciate your patience, sorry it has taken me a few days to get back to you. I’m going to pass the article.. cheers! ManfromButtonwillow (talk) 12:37, 22 November 2019 (UTC)