Talk:Thyroid
![]() | Thyroid has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: January 21, 2017. (Reviewed version). |
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Acronyms
I have added four common acronyms used throughout the article in the "acronyms" field. Not sure whether this is useful or just information clutter. Any thoughts? --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:27, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- How are you defining 'acronym'? and just clutter imo. --Iztwoz (talk) 07:13, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- I see this has disappeared. Thanks - was worth a try to see how it looked, and answer was, not great. --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Subsections in thyroid
I've reinstated these... I think it's very useful to distinguish between symptoms and diseases of the thyroid, which are often incorrectly lumped together. Hyperthyroid and hypothyroid are symptoms, and we can talk about separate disease processes in the second section. I will make the table of contents smaller so this is less visible at the article's lead. Happy to discuss. --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
- Well - i cannot see any reasoning for this separation. Hyperthyroid and co are just adjectives of the diseases. and the symptoms discussed are those of the diseases. ? (i like your other changes) --Iztwoz (talk) 10:46, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
- If by "adjective" you mean "symptom"! One reason why they should be distinct here is that most of the diseases can cause both hyper, hypo, nodules, and/or goiters, yet there are specific things about each symptom and disease that differ. I hope this difference makes sense--Tom (LT) (talk) 11:39, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- By adjective I meant adjective as defined in my Oxford English dictionary. Hyperthyroidism (for example) is the condition and hyperthyroid the adjective. Hyperthyroidism is the condition of a dysfunctional thyroid, a functional disorder as is Hypothyroidism. All accounts state that the symptoms of hyperthyroidism are such and such. Hyperthyroidism is not defined as a symptom of Grave’s disease but is caused as a result of Grave’s disease. Likewise for Hashimoto’s thyroiditis and the sometimes development of hypothyroidism. Each of these functional disorders has their own set of symptoms. I still don’t see the point in this separation with the sections you have placed under the heading Symptoms. The sections just refer to and describe the disorder and mentions the symptoms and also treatment. Nodules are placed under this heading of symptoms as well, and they do not usually present any. Congenital hypothyroidism is not referred to as a symptom it is a condition that has symptoms. I don’t know what you mean by most of the diseases can cause both disorders and nodules etc. And a goitre is just an enlarged thyroid gland which does not have symptoms. --Iztwoz (talk) 06:16, 9 September 2016 (UTC) Just to add Tom (LT) that I've just added a sentence on Graves' disease where hyperthyroidism is cited as a sign of Graves'. I cannot do more as I really feel that the whole clinical significance section is in need of restructuring. --Iztwoz (talk) 11:17, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry for the long delay in editing. Responses:
- By adjective I meant adjective as defined in my Oxford English dictionary. Hyperthyroidism (for example) is the condition and hyperthyroid the adjective. Hyperthyroidism is the condition of a dysfunctional thyroid, a functional disorder as is Hypothyroidism. All accounts state that the symptoms of hyperthyroidism are such and such. Hyperthyroidism is not defined as a symptom of Grave’s disease but is caused as a result of Grave’s disease. Likewise for Hashimoto’s thyroiditis and the sometimes development of hypothyroidism. Each of these functional disorders has their own set of symptoms. I still don’t see the point in this separation with the sections you have placed under the heading Symptoms. The sections just refer to and describe the disorder and mentions the symptoms and also treatment. Nodules are placed under this heading of symptoms as well, and they do not usually present any. Congenital hypothyroidism is not referred to as a symptom it is a condition that has symptoms. I don’t know what you mean by most of the diseases can cause both disorders and nodules etc. And a goitre is just an enlarged thyroid gland which does not have symptoms. --Iztwoz (talk) 06:16, 9 September 2016 (UTC) Just to add Tom (LT) that I've just added a sentence on Graves' disease where hyperthyroidism is cited as a sign of Graves'. I cannot do more as I really feel that the whole clinical significance section is in need of restructuring. --Iztwoz (talk) 11:17, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- If by "adjective" you mean "symptom"! One reason why they should be distinct here is that most of the diseases can cause both hyper, hypo, nodules, and/or goiters, yet there are specific things about each symptom and disease that differ. I hope this difference makes sense--Tom (LT) (talk) 11:39, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- Hyperthyroidism and hypothyroidisms are syndromes - collections of symptoms - that are caused by an underlying disease state. That's why I think they belong in the "symptoms" section - because these are what people notice
- Symptoms are what a person notices - a goitre and a nodule are both symptoms of an underlying disease. You are not correct to say "a goiter... does not have symptoms". A large neck swelling is what the person affected notices.
- So separating them separate what people notice from the underlying causes - eg many inflammatory states can cause hypo or hyperthyroidism and a goiter, but hypo/hyperthyroidism/goiters also share other causes. Lumping them under a heading relating to symptoms (goiter, nodule, hypo/hyper) is very confusing. --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:38, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- Tom (LT) Cannot see the justification for calling the disorders of Hyper- and hypothyroidism, symptoms. A symptom describes a subjective experience. Nobody would say to another that they were feeling hyperthyroid. ? So removed heading.--Iztwoz (talk) 07:38, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- Seeing as there is about to be a review, will also respond here: happy to compromise, and the reply to this was here: User talk:LT910001/Archive_5#Nerve.--Tom (LT) (talk) 19:50, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
- Hello Tom (LT) - thanks for the note. I do think that's a big improvement. I too have been a bit busy but not as productively as you and I'm getting back into things here a bit more, all best --Iztwoz (talk) 20:07, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
- Seeing as there is about to be a review, will also respond here: happy to compromise, and the reply to this was here: User talk:LT910001/Archive_5#Nerve.--Tom (LT) (talk) 19:50, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
- Tom (LT) Cannot see the justification for calling the disorders of Hyper- and hypothyroidism, symptoms. A symptom describes a subjective experience. Nobody would say to another that they were feeling hyperthyroid. ? So removed heading.--Iztwoz (talk) 07:38, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
GA Review
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Thyroid/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Jclemens (talk · contribs) 06:30, 5 January 2017 (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. | Issues |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | At GA level already, a few nitpicks identified. |
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. | |
![]() |
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). | No issues identified. |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | None seen |
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Nothing identified with Earwig's tool. |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Fine. |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Fine. |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | Fine. |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | No issues noted. |
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. | Some are a bit complex, but everything appears to be in order. |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | Passing per improvements. Strong work! |
Comments
Thanks for your review Jclemens. I will try and respond to your comments within a week. I have corrected the caption as above... an issue that has "dog"ged the article since I put it there (all "kid"ding aside, I have fixed the caption :) ) --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:42, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for my partial review are accepted, but I don't really expect to fully finish a first read-through for the next 24 hours. I appreciate you getting to work on what I found initially. Images, edit warring, and copyvio are the easy bits. Getting the scientific bits understandable and fun to read is the much higher hurdle, and I find collaborating with content experts the more rewarding part of the review process. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 18:42, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
First read through, from the top...
Review first go 'round if needed
|
---|
Lead
Structure
Function
Clinical significance
History
Etc
OK, that's the first read through. Have fun digesting that! Jclemens (talk) 21:50, 7 January 2017 (UTC) |
- Right, thanks :). Will get to this over the next 1-2 weeks and update above as I do things. Have separated above into subtitles so I can respond more easily.--Tom (LT) (talk) 00:25, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- No rush. Identifying problems is much easier than fixing them, and I appreciate that you've stepped up to try and get a VA to GA, and will do my best to help you make it something truly worthy of the designation. Jclemens (talk) 01:24, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Appreciate it. Getting there! Still
Doing... - will let you know when I'm done.--Tom (LT) (talk) 02:33, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- Understood and I see your progress so far. I've got the page watchlisted and will be checking in about daily. Jclemens (talk) 05:29, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Jclemens:
Done - have responded to your first tranche. Look forward to your responses. If you wouldn't mind using {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}} to group resolved issue it will make it easier for me to address what remains :). --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:58, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Ok, got it. May take me a bit to re-review in as much detail, but certainly by Saturday U.S. time. Jclemens (talk) 03:32, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Jclemens:
- Understood and I see your progress so far. I've got the page watchlisted and will be checking in about daily. Jclemens (talk) 05:29, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Appreciate it. Getting there! Still
- No rush. Identifying problems is much easier than fixing them, and I appreciate that you've stepped up to try and get a VA to GA, and will do my best to help you make it something truly worthy of the designation. Jclemens (talk) 01:24, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
January 14th
Things are looking good. I Wikignomed a few typos and reference errors for you--Keep up the good work! Jclemens (talk) 18:33, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Second Pass
Since everything has gotten gone through with a fine toothed comb, and I don't vehemently disagree with any of the 'not done's above, I'm collapsing everything above per request and going to go through it all again. Here goes... Jclemens (talk) 19:40, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Goiter or goitre? Pick one and stick with it (except for direct quotes, reference titles, etc. of course)
... and I'm not going to let that hold you back from GA, knowing that you'll address this as you have all the other matters. This is certainly GA quality work, British English notwithstanding. ;-) Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 19:59, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for your thorough review :) --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Hypothyroidism (existing section, second paragraph, management of)
I am new to offering comments on Wikipedia, so please bear with me.
If you check Google Scholar for thyroid, there are literally hundreds of new research papers published weekly. There is still so much to learn. My wife has hypothyroidism, and I have been following her treatment for 20+ years.
This section is incomplete and thus misleading. It says: "Hypothyroidism is managed with replacement of the hormone thyroxine." thyroxine = T4. This is certainly true for many patients, but a significant number are also treated with replacement of T3, either in synthetic form, for example brand name Cytomel, or through various natural thyroid, typically derived from dessicated pig or cow thyroid gland, for example brand names Armour Thyroid or Naturethroid. More research is calling into question the established doctrine of the american endocrinologists to treat only with T4 levothyroxine. --Jmb5 (talk) 23:20, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Hatnote
Removed hatnote inserted by Doc James. [1] I did this because:
- Article is very clear about what it is about, readers will discover this via the picture and reading the text
- Readers looking for the medication very unlikely to search just for "thyroid" without supplying some more information (hatnote may be better placed on Thyroid hormone article)
- Hatnote better placed in thyroid hormone article or even a relevant section if consensus emerges for it to be placed
- For the reason above, this is not standard on our anatomy articles (eg we do not supply a hatnote for Pancreas to Digestive enzymes etc.)
Looking forward to perspectives of other users. --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:52, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- Desiccated thyroid is often called just thyroid Tom (LT)[2]
- Also called "thyroid tablets, usp"[3] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:56, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- Have posted at WP:MED and WP:ANATOMY to get some additional perspectives. Am not convinced by your thinking above. I have never heard patient's describe medications as just 'thyroid' - yes I have heard 'thyroid tablets' and 'heart medications' but that's why people use the second term ('tablets', 'medications') and not just state something confusing like 'I take thyroid' or 'I take heart' (which I assume most people would take to mean an meaty bits of an animal organ are literally being eaten). I think readers are cluey enough to work this out and so still don't support this hatnote. Am not a big fan of the excessive use of hatnotes as they make articles harder to read and I feel deter reading. Anyhow will see what other editors think. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:33, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
- The stuff is actually made out of thyroid. Maybe we can just put it as a "see also". Agree it is a less common use and not set on a hatnote as I agree those can be overused. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:35, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
- agree w/ Doc James suggestion--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:16, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
- Good idea, would support this. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:49, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
- The stuff is actually made out of thyroid. Maybe we can just put it as a "see also". Agree it is a less common use and not set on a hatnote as I agree those can be overused. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:35, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
- Have posted at WP:MED and WP:ANATOMY to get some additional perspectives. Am not convinced by your thinking above. I have never heard patient's describe medications as just 'thyroid' - yes I have heard 'thyroid tablets' and 'heart medications' but that's why people use the second term ('tablets', 'medications') and not just state something confusing like 'I take thyroid' or 'I take heart' (which I assume most people would take to mean an meaty bits of an animal organ are literally being eaten). I think readers are cluey enough to work this out and so still don't support this hatnote. Am not a big fan of the excessive use of hatnotes as they make articles harder to read and I feel deter reading. Anyhow will see what other editors think. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:33, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
- A hatnote definitely makes sense, but it shouldn't read "the medication", but rather "the hormones" or "the product of the thyroid". Thyroid hormones may be perceived by the general public as drugs, but they are primarily hormones. Carl Fredrik talk 08:45, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- I oppose the hatnote. I am fine with the "See also" section. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:38, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Lead edits
I have rephrased para 2 of the Lead for clarity and accuracy, and plan several more edits to this article. I welcome review of and comments on my edits, especially by those who have made major contributions to this article, such as Tom (LT) (talk), and Iztwoz (talk). Regards, IiKkEe (talk) 12:21, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for many of your edits IiKkEe, as I noted on your talk page some do improve the article and I can see you clearly have the goal of improving readability :). Some comments:
- I have removed many unnecessary subheadings, which have left subsections of single paragraphs or resulted in arbitrary subsections. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:22, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
- Per WP:NOT a catalogue; and also probably (WP:BRD), as I do admit this is somewhat subjective. I have reverted your changes to the clinical significance subsection. My goal in structuring the section is to help readers understand the difference between symptoms of thyroid disease (which are generally just those four) vs. the diseases underlying them. I encourage you to edit something like Diseases of the thyroid gland if you want to create a comprehensive list or summary article of all diseases in a list format. In general these broad overview type articles are written in summary style and redirect readers to associated articles rather than covering more content here.
- I want to express my appreciation for some edits, eg your edit to the lead, the caption (putting colours, which it is true some readers may not immediately grasp) and some reordering sentences into logical formats :)
Happy to discuss further! There are many anatomy articles in need of attention, hope to see you around the traps with content addition related edits too :). (see WP:ANAT500 for our top 500 and their quality assesments) --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:22, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Tom (LT) Again, apologies for the 4 month delay in responding, I have been away from WP until a few days ago. Thank you for your patience and civility. What you call stylistic changes I call organizational changes. I like subsection headings, I think they are an improvement. They tell the reader what the subject of the ensuing paragraph(s) will be. If any other editor thinks the article is better without them, I never object to having them reverted. I move on. In the 6 years I have been editing, the majority of my ~15,000 edits of ~500 articles have been modifications of Leads for clarity and completeness; many others have been organizational changes; the fewest have been content corrections or additions. All I ask is that you and others review and leave unaltered the edits you agree with (I always appreciate others clicking on "Thank") and revert those you don't agree with. Specifically, thank you for expressing your appreciation for my edits of the Thyroid article Lead and image caption. Let's keep co-editing! Regards, IiKkEe (talk) 02:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
disorders
thyroid gland 175.110.24.156 (talk) 19:43, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Biology
The thyroid secretes a proteinaceous hormone called 117.226.238.251 (talk) 02:56, 18 November 2021 (UTC)