Endometrial cancer is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 9, 2014. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically
review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Endometrial cancer.
|
Toolbox |
---|
In premenopausal women who are not on birth control, the cause of endometrial cancer is overwhelmingly most likely to be lack of periods -- either significantly fewer periods than normal or completely absent periods. This causes a buildup of the uterine lining (endometrium) over time, and is known as endometrial hyperplasia. You first need to have endometrial hyperplasia to get endometrial cancer, yet most cases of endometrial hyperplasia will not become cancerous. Is this correct? 2601:98A:480:C080:289C:A68F:6403:3EFF ( talk) 06:55, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Most people prefer them over one line thus I would request that User:Headbomb revert his edits here [1] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
The "c blausen" needs to be removed from the image Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:40, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
I have had the feedback on this now, and have a marked-up print out. In general it was thought pretty good, and these are relatively minor points. I think I'll just make the smaller changes re wording etc myself now, but do say if there are any you have problems with. Then I'll list more complex things here. Wiki CRUK John ( talk) 15:54, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Kirill Lokshin ( talk · contribs) 11:03, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | The prose is good, but a bit dense in places, although this is to be expected for a topic of this nature. The statistics in the fourth paragraph in the "Pathophysiology" section (beginning with "Type I and type II cancers...") are difficult to follow in prose form; perhaps moving them to a table would improve the flow? | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | No issues with any of the style guidelines. | |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | Appropriate references are provided, all of which appear to meet the requirements of WP:MEDRS. | |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | Good use of citations throughout. The citation density varies significantly between sections (for example, while most sections average one citation per 1–3 sentences, the "Endometrioid adenocarcinoma" section has one citation per paragraph); while this is not necessarily a problem, it's unclear whether it was done deliberately. | |
2c. it contains no original research. | All of the material appears to be appropriately derived from reliable secondary sources. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Good coverage of the various elements of the topic. I note that an expert review by CRUK has not identified any significant deficiencies in coverage. | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Generally well-focused, although certain sections ("Risk factors", "Pathophysiology") go into greater detail than others ("Classification"). | |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | No neutrality issues. | |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | No stability issues. | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | All images appear to be appropriately tagged; no fair-use images are present. | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Good use of images throughout. Some of the image alignments behave oddly on lower screen resolutions, particularly in the "Staging" section; I would suggest not mixing gallery and floating image alignments within the same section. | |
7. Overall assessment. | Overall, an excellent article that covers the topic well and is understandable by someone without a medical background. I recommend focusing on prose quality and flow, as well as expanding some of the shorter sections, to further enhance the article before a potential FAC. |
Not sure why? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Thus removed this section. Let me know if I have missed anything. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:32, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I've set-up Endometrial cancer as a blurb for the Today's Featured Article requests process.
You can see it at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Endometrial cancer.
However, as I myself have nominated a bunch of other articles lately, I won't actually transclude it at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests.
If anyone else wishes to do so, they can follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests, and then a discussion will start as to the article's consideration for the Main Page.
Thank you,
— Cirt ( talk) 01:50, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Have moved this here " Heart disease is the most common cause of death among endometrial cancer survivors [1]. Obesity does not seem to play a role in prognosis of early stage endometrial cancer survivors [2]."
As it is supported by primary sources.
This secondary source disagrees that obesity does not affect prognosis in survivors. [3] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 23:33, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
References
Resolved. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:05, 8 December 2014 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I don't want to litter an FA with tags, but book sources need page numbers. This source is cited dozens of times, with no page nos.
This citation (and other web sources) is incomplete (date, volume, accessdate, etc)
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:31, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
|
Done. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:05, 8 December 2014 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Not sure why white is lower case, Black upper, and should the term African American be used instead? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:02, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
|
Done. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:51, 9 December 2014 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
See Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/December 9, 2014 SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:29, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Are we done here now? If so, please feel free to hat/hab? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:09, 8 December 2014 (UTC) |
Done. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:07, 8 December 2014 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The lead says:
I cannot find that in the first citation given, and the second is not an online source. The body of the article says:
And the sources given for this section are different than those used in the lead. One says:
This stands out to me because combo therapy is controversial; some ob/gyns and endocrinologists give progesterone and estrogen separately. This needs to be sorted. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
|
Done. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:51, 9 December 2014 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Probably best taken up at WT:MED, but I don't know why the FA menstrual cycle is linked nowhere in this article, relative to the c-class menstruation, which is linked. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:03, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
|
This is at endometriosis:
Is it worthy of mention here? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:55, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
References
NCI2014Gen
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).WCR2014Epi
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Hoffman
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).NIH-Prevention
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).I was somewhat nauseated by the appearance of this bloody medical photograph, which appears as the first image on the main page today. Should we display a different image from this article on the Main Page? Jarble ( talk) 06:17, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
"Neither endometrial biopsy nor dilation and curettage is sufficiently accurate to rule out endometrial carcinoma. [1]"
I have read parts of the paper and unable to find the bit that supports this? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 03:01, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
The new NICE guideline for suspected cancer ( http://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/NG12, page 160-166 of the full guideline) discusses warning signs for endometrial cancer and when to perform gynaecological ultrasound. In women over 55 USS is suggested in those with unexplained vaginal discharge (when presenting de novo or if associated with thrombocytosis or hyperglycaemia) or those with haematuria (associated with either anaemia or thrombocytosis or hyperglycaemia). This is largely based on doi:10.3399/bjgp13X671632 which itself is a primary source. Worth discussing the relevance of these features? JFW | T@lk 14:03, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00130-0 Might be useful to match this with the current content. JFW | T@lk 13:10, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Endometrial cancer. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:20, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Endometrial cancer is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 9, 2014. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically
review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Endometrial cancer.
|
Toolbox |
---|
In premenopausal women who are not on birth control, the cause of endometrial cancer is overwhelmingly most likely to be lack of periods -- either significantly fewer periods than normal or completely absent periods. This causes a buildup of the uterine lining (endometrium) over time, and is known as endometrial hyperplasia. You first need to have endometrial hyperplasia to get endometrial cancer, yet most cases of endometrial hyperplasia will not become cancerous. Is this correct? 2601:98A:480:C080:289C:A68F:6403:3EFF ( talk) 06:55, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Most people prefer them over one line thus I would request that User:Headbomb revert his edits here [1] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
The "c blausen" needs to be removed from the image Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:40, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
I have had the feedback on this now, and have a marked-up print out. In general it was thought pretty good, and these are relatively minor points. I think I'll just make the smaller changes re wording etc myself now, but do say if there are any you have problems with. Then I'll list more complex things here. Wiki CRUK John ( talk) 15:54, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Kirill Lokshin ( talk · contribs) 11:03, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | The prose is good, but a bit dense in places, although this is to be expected for a topic of this nature. The statistics in the fourth paragraph in the "Pathophysiology" section (beginning with "Type I and type II cancers...") are difficult to follow in prose form; perhaps moving them to a table would improve the flow? | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | No issues with any of the style guidelines. | |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | Appropriate references are provided, all of which appear to meet the requirements of WP:MEDRS. | |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | Good use of citations throughout. The citation density varies significantly between sections (for example, while most sections average one citation per 1–3 sentences, the "Endometrioid adenocarcinoma" section has one citation per paragraph); while this is not necessarily a problem, it's unclear whether it was done deliberately. | |
2c. it contains no original research. | All of the material appears to be appropriately derived from reliable secondary sources. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Good coverage of the various elements of the topic. I note that an expert review by CRUK has not identified any significant deficiencies in coverage. | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Generally well-focused, although certain sections ("Risk factors", "Pathophysiology") go into greater detail than others ("Classification"). | |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | No neutrality issues. | |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | No stability issues. | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | All images appear to be appropriately tagged; no fair-use images are present. | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Good use of images throughout. Some of the image alignments behave oddly on lower screen resolutions, particularly in the "Staging" section; I would suggest not mixing gallery and floating image alignments within the same section. | |
7. Overall assessment. | Overall, an excellent article that covers the topic well and is understandable by someone without a medical background. I recommend focusing on prose quality and flow, as well as expanding some of the shorter sections, to further enhance the article before a potential FAC. |
Not sure why? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Thus removed this section. Let me know if I have missed anything. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:32, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I've set-up Endometrial cancer as a blurb for the Today's Featured Article requests process.
You can see it at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Endometrial cancer.
However, as I myself have nominated a bunch of other articles lately, I won't actually transclude it at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests.
If anyone else wishes to do so, they can follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests, and then a discussion will start as to the article's consideration for the Main Page.
Thank you,
— Cirt ( talk) 01:50, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Have moved this here " Heart disease is the most common cause of death among endometrial cancer survivors [1]. Obesity does not seem to play a role in prognosis of early stage endometrial cancer survivors [2]."
As it is supported by primary sources.
This secondary source disagrees that obesity does not affect prognosis in survivors. [3] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 23:33, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
References
Resolved. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:05, 8 December 2014 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I don't want to litter an FA with tags, but book sources need page numbers. This source is cited dozens of times, with no page nos.
This citation (and other web sources) is incomplete (date, volume, accessdate, etc)
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:31, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
|
Done. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:05, 8 December 2014 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Not sure why white is lower case, Black upper, and should the term African American be used instead? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:02, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
|
Done. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:51, 9 December 2014 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
See Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/December 9, 2014 SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:29, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Are we done here now? If so, please feel free to hat/hab? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:09, 8 December 2014 (UTC) |
Done. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:07, 8 December 2014 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The lead says:
I cannot find that in the first citation given, and the second is not an online source. The body of the article says:
And the sources given for this section are different than those used in the lead. One says:
This stands out to me because combo therapy is controversial; some ob/gyns and endocrinologists give progesterone and estrogen separately. This needs to be sorted. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
|
Done. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:51, 9 December 2014 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Probably best taken up at WT:MED, but I don't know why the FA menstrual cycle is linked nowhere in this article, relative to the c-class menstruation, which is linked. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:03, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
|
This is at endometriosis:
Is it worthy of mention here? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:55, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
References
NCI2014Gen
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).WCR2014Epi
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Hoffman
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).NIH-Prevention
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).I was somewhat nauseated by the appearance of this bloody medical photograph, which appears as the first image on the main page today. Should we display a different image from this article on the Main Page? Jarble ( talk) 06:17, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
"Neither endometrial biopsy nor dilation and curettage is sufficiently accurate to rule out endometrial carcinoma. [1]"
I have read parts of the paper and unable to find the bit that supports this? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 03:01, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
The new NICE guideline for suspected cancer ( http://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/NG12, page 160-166 of the full guideline) discusses warning signs for endometrial cancer and when to perform gynaecological ultrasound. In women over 55 USS is suggested in those with unexplained vaginal discharge (when presenting de novo or if associated with thrombocytosis or hyperglycaemia) or those with haematuria (associated with either anaemia or thrombocytosis or hyperglycaemia). This is largely based on doi:10.3399/bjgp13X671632 which itself is a primary source. Worth discussing the relevance of these features? JFW | T@lk 14:03, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00130-0 Might be useful to match this with the current content. JFW | T@lk 13:10, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Endometrial cancer. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:20, 20 September 2017 (UTC)