Jump to content

Talk:Ureter/GA1

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

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Dunkleosteus77 (talk · contribs) 16:03, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for taking up this review Dunkleosteus77. I'll try and address what I can now, and weightier comments after we're finished at prostate. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:07, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dunkleosteus77 just checking up on progress. I have responded to your concerns below. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:39, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Dunkleosteus77 responded to your new concerns. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:18, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Dunkleosteus77 I will respond to your concerns below. I'm very appreciative of the time you are giving me to respond and thoroughness. However, could I please ask you for either a full review, or an indication of where your review is at and expects to be at time-wise? This piecemeal approach results in a few relatively small concerns delivered weekly and I would probably be able to address most concerns in one or two sittings if I had a full review in front of me. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:45, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Dunkleosteus77 done, thanks for replying so promptly. One question at the end for you, and I have boxed some old review content. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:53, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Dunkleosteus77, have finally got to the animals query. Have a look in the collapsed section and let me know if you have any remaining issues.--Tom (LT) (talk) 06:23, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dunkleisteus77

[edit]
Addressed
The way it's worded makes it sound like the fact that medical imaging wasn't invented until the 20th century is at the crux of understanding the history of the ureter   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:36, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Partly done. The full paragraph is: The ureters have been identified for at least two thousand years; with the word ureter stemming from the stem uro- relating to urinating and seen in written records since at least the time of Hippocrates. It is however only since the 1500s that the term "ureter" has been consistently used to refer to the modern structure; and only since the development of medical imaging in the 1900s that techniques such as X-ray, CT and ultrasound have been able to view the ureters. Visualising in a live person is very important and quite distinct from cadaveric specimens. Reference to the time point is both useful to get an idea of the scale of history, and also mirrors the construction of the first two sentences. I will add a statement about uteroscopy. I think this is a stylistic issue that should not block nomination per the six criteria which you review against (WP:GACR); you are welcome to seek a second opinion. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:48, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assume the ureter develops differently in a lot of different amniote groups. Why do you only mention marsupials?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:58, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Question: I may need some help here. First is that I don't have enough familiarity with zoology to confidently reword amniotes to something more easy to understand, but ideally the lay terms would also be used. If you could insert what that means, I'd be very grateful. Secondly is that the fact is that the ureters are a pretty straightforward structure, connecting kidneys to bladders, so it's difficult to find a reliable source that describes specifically which animals its in. Thirdly is that because it's such a straightforward structure I don't really have much to say about it in other animals. I'd value your opinion on this point.--Tom (LT) (talk) 23:53, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have detailed knowledge on the ureters of the animal kingdom, but I know that among amniotes (birds, reptiles, and mammals), birds and some reptiles do not have bladders, and I'm not sure what that means for ureters. Since you should also be talking about fish and amphibians, I suggest you say simply "animals. This should give you a good crash course into animal ureters you can bounce off of   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:14, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done and found an up-to-date, reliable source. Thanks for pushing me on this one. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:23, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"The duct that connects the kidney to excrete urine in these animals is the ureter" this seems to imply that all non-human amniotes lack a bladder (unless you're including a bladder where present on the path from the kidneys to the urethra/cloaca). Also, if it's not too much trouble, it might be good to specifically state that sharks and amphibians don't have ureters and use the mesonephric duct to connect the kidney to the cloaca. Looking up fish, I think that at least some fish do indeed have a ureter(s?)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:24, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Dunkleosteus77 I think the phrasing now is very clear. It's present in amniotes, who have metanephric-derived kidneys, where the duct is called the ureter, and it connects to the bladder: The structure specifically called the ureter is present in amniotes, meaning mammals, birds and reptiles.[24] These animals possess an adult kidney derived from the metanephros.[24] The duct that connects the kidney to excrete urine in these animals is the ureter.[24] It connects to the urinary bladder, from whence urine leaves via the urethra
Based on that source, although there are ducts which connect kidneys to excrete matter in other animals, because it is not derived from the metanephric duct, it is not called the ureter. With regard to other facts above, I feel that in the case less is more. I sometimes encounter situations in the anatomy space where there are lots of 'comparative type' statements as you request and, in my opinion, they often make the text more confusing, which is why I haven't gone into more detail about other types of kidneys, the role of the bladder, etc. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:00, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]