Talk:Esophagus

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Esophageal Sphincters

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I wonder if we cosmos should merge in the upper esophageal sphincter and cardia articles into this section. I made some changes to the paragraph on the gastroesophageal junction, as that paragraph had several large issues, and in doing so I realized that both cardia, and the upper esophageal sphincter have their own mediocre pages. I feel that a much better version could be created that combined all three. However, given that the cardia is actually anatomically part of the stomach, I wonder if that should not be treated separately and not included here? The lower esophageal sphincter is slightly superior to the cardia anyway.

Any thoughts?

  • Support I totally agree. Not synonymous by any stretch but related enough to warrant finding them together would be beneficial. Puppylover1992 (talk) 23:22, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There is certainly room for much merging within anatomical articles, but I don't support this merge because I feel these are two separate structures, one is a muscle and one is part of the digestive system, and it is difficult to reconcile these in a single article. I feel that the article on oesophagus could be expanded to a significant length that the sphincter, if merged, would have to be branched again in the future anyway. --LT910001 (talk) 04:12, 7 January 2014 (UTC) Support easier to have this in one place, and better for readers. --LT910001 (talk) 11:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have completed the merge with upper esophageal sphincter and lower had already been merged (not by me). --LT910001 (talk) 08:16, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Cytopharynx

Why does "cytopharynx" redirect here? It is a cytomorphological feature of unicellular eukaryotes and has nothing to do with esophagus of multicellular organisms (though both have some kind of "digestive function"). There is no Cytopharynx page yet, but a redirect to here is useless in this case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zac80 (talk • contribs) 11:38, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gullet

Why does "gullet" redirect here? It needs to be explained. 131.116.254.198 (talk) 13:11, 21 November 2011 (CUT)

Gullet is simply another less formal name for the esophagi... Christopher (talk) 13:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Infobox

I think someone needs to fix it... Lagomen (talk) 06:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Addition

I added "During swallowing food passes from the mouth through the pharynx into the esophagus and travels via peristalsis to the stomach." because it links the swallowing (deglutition) article, pharynx and three parts naso, oro, laryngopharynx, and perstalsis where they have a nice animation of esophagus. Regards GetAgrippa (talk) 03:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GAN checklist

Tranche 1

Mainly written for myself while I prepare for GAN: --LT910001 (talk) 08:15, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  1.  Done Expand lead
  2.  Done Fully cite the 'histology' section
  3.  Done Add information on lymphatic supply
  4.  Done Find a way to integrate the two images in 'histology' better into the article
  5.  Done Expand and cite 'sphincter dysfunction'
  6.  Done Trim the image gallery, ensure all images used here are PD.
  7.  Done Check that all citations have page numbers.
  8.  Done Replace or expand 'BU histology' citations
  9. Add 'Symptoms' subsection to 'Clinical significance' section.
  • I think that the article is not ready for GA nomination, so I would suggest withdrawing the current nomination (currently without a reviewer). Snowman (talk) 08:34, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I will not be doing this, although I am happy to address any specific concerns you have. I have often had up wait up to several months to receive a review, so there is ample time to address any concerns you have. In addition to this article, I invite you to help improve our other most popular articles (WP:ANAT500) --LT910001 (talk) 08:53, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it would be better to raise the standard of the article prior to nomination. Snowman (talk) 12:39, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy for the reviewer to make this call, and feel that this article would meet the GA criteria. You may be confusing the criteria of a GA, in which there is no requirement for complete comprehensiveness, with a FA. --LT910001 (talk) 21:29, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is misleading ambiguities and amateurish style that I am concerned about. It is quite a broad topic. GANs only have one reviewer, and I would not want the reviewer to be overloaded. Snowman (talk) 21:40, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you feel that way. I am unable to respond in a suitable way to this broad and subjective statement. --LT910001 (talk) 22:30, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone is entitled to their own views an opinions. Snowman (talk) 23:28, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Distinguish between squamous and adendo carcinoma and the causes of each. Snowman (talk) 12:39, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is a good point. --LT910001 (talk) 21:29, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • A good image of all of the layers of he oesop is missing. There was a good illustrative one in the gallery, but it is black and white. A picture of H&E section of all the layers would be helpful. Snowman (talk) 12:39, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the original image because I do not think it is necessary, as a link is provided to Gastrointestinal wall where a more complete description and several images of similar structures can be found. --LT910001 (talk) 21:29, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion the article currently lacks a descent image showing all the layers of the oesophagus. Snowman (talk) 21:47, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The oesophagus has an adventitia. This is mentioned. --LT910001 (talk) 21:29, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
... But not the absence of a serosa, which is unusual in the GI tract. Snowman (talk) 21:40, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As you know, an adventitia and a serosa are mutally exclusive. --LT910001 (talk) 22:30, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I've nonetheless included a reference to this. --LT910001 (talk) 22:36, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would ask that your edits to this GAN, such as this one ("Cholinergic lower motor neurons from the nucleus ambiguous travel with the vagus nerve and innervate the striated muscle of the upper esophagus.[citation needed]") are properly sourced. --LT910001 (talk) 21:29, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion the pre-existing version was very misleading. Snowman (talk) 21:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide a reliable source so that others may verify your changes. --LT910001 (talk) 22:30, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have decided to delete the line with the cn tags. It was not copied. Some of the bigger or more specialized books say that skeletal muscle in the palate, pharynx and oseop are innervated from the nucleus ambiguous, but smaller ones do not include the oesop. The 2dn edition of Student Gray's is moderately helpful - see "Oesophagus" in chapter 3, where it definitely states that the 10th cranial nerve innovates the skeletal muscle of the oesph through the branchial arch efferents of the 10th cranial nerve. Snowman (talk) 23:17, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You have not transcribed the wikilinks with my quote, so I have added them to the quote above. You might find the pages that I wikilinked are also moderately helpful. Snowman (talk) 23:29, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I have re-added this information and provided a source. --LT910001 (talk) 01:07, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have put two cn tags in the text to highlight two lines where I would like to see easy verification. You have not transcribed the wikilinks with my quote; nevertheless, you might find the pages that I wikilinked are also moderately helpful. Snowman (talk) 11:39, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Thanks, I'm no sure what wikilinks you refer. However I've added citations to these. --LT910001 (talk) 22:36, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Specific mention to longitudinal and circular muscle. Snowman (talk) 12:34, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done --LT910001 (talk) 01:07, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The outer layer being the longitudinal fibers. Snowman (talk) 10:22, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nerve plexuses in the wall of the oesophagus. Snowman (talk) 12:34, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done --LT910001 (talk) 01:07, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... but do not have distinct thickenings like other sphincters." This is as sourced from a physiology book and it is the same in "Davidson's Principles & Practice of Medicine", but anatomy books describe a slight thickening of muscle in the lower end of the oeshop. I a not sure what is the best way to describe the lower sphincter. Snowman (talk) 00:26, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Already done I believe this is covered here: "The esophageal sphincters are functional, but not anatomical sphincters, meaning that they are sections of the esophageal wall that act as a sphincter, but do not have distinct thickenings like other sphincters" --LT910001 (talk) 01:07, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gray's gives the colour of the oesop mucosa in a fresh preparation as greyish-pink. The article gives the colour as salmon pink sourced from an endoscopy book, so this must be the colour as seen at endoscopy. A footnote would be helpful to explain different colours in different preparations. Snowman (talk) 10:39, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I have added a bit about colours near to the z-line. Snowman (talk) 12:36, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through the article, it goes back and forth between American and British English. Can we decide on one and use it consistently within the article? WP:ARTCON says that should be the case. My vote would be for American English since most of the article is already written in that form and that makes it easier, but I'll leave the decision to you gents. I really have no strong preference either way in this situation. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:35, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article started in USA English, so I think that the guidelines would say that it should stay USA English. Snowman (talk) 21:57, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, the use of "oesophagus" is inconsistent with the article's title and an oversight on my part. --LT910001 (talk) 00:16, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No worries and it's fixed now. The only instances of oesophagus are now in quotes or are discussing that it is the British spelling and its latin roots. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 09:26, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should mention heartburn or dyspepia with regards to acid reflux. The section currently only mentions difficulty with swallowing (wikilinked to Odynophagia). Snowman (talk) 09:40, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Barrett's oesop section should include mention of dysplasia. This will make some of the more modern treatments (mucosal resection and mucosal ablation) easier to understand. Snowman (talk) 09:49, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that more could be made of the action of the crura of the diaphragm as an extrinsic factor at the lower oesophageal junction. Snowman (talk) 08:57, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Development

  • The oesoph has a mesothelial covering (serosa) early in development and loses it, so the topic needs careful consideration. Snowman (talk) 22:39, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Snowmanradio, I have moved this comment to a new section of this pseudo-review, as I will make mention of it in the 'development' section--LT910001 (talk) 01:07, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the development section included formation of the respiratory tract with specific mention of the respiratory diverticulum from the foregut, then the malformations section would be easier to understand. Snowman (talk) 22:11, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am looking into expanding the development section now. --LT910001 (talk) 22:36, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems that the 4th arch and 6th arch give rise to the voluntary muscles for swallowing (the 5th arch soon disappears in humans). The sixth arch gives rise the the striated m of the oeshophagus. The skeletal m in the oesoph needs careful consideration. Snowman (talk) 22:11, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clinical significance section

Hiatus hernia is quite commons and deserves a mention. Why not organize the section by symptoms; ie blockage (dysphagia), dyspepsia, bleeding, and so on? Snowman (talk) 12:51, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to describe the primary pathologies that affect the esophagus. However, it is a very reasonable suggestion to add a 'symptoms' subsection, which I will do shortly. --LT910001 (talk) 04:48, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edits

I have:--LT910001 (talk) 22:01, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Replaced "blockage" with "constriction" as there is no mention of blockage in the text. LT910001 (talk) 22:01, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You obviously missed this "When severe, esophageal cancer may eventually cause obstruction of the oesophagus, ...". Snowman (talk) 22:34, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed "NMR scan" and replaced it with "CT scan" as this is supported in-text LT910001 (talk) 22:01, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that the text will need to be updated to include NMR probably for investigating cancer. Snowman (talk) 22:34, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK. There are may right ways of doing this. Sometimes it may be necessary to adapt the format to make it more suitable for a particular topic. Did you mean to remove the section on malformations? Snowman (talk) 22:34, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have regrouped the diseases, because the congenital malformations are diseases as well. Snowman (talk) 00:03, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverted your removal of the image per WP:BRD. This image is aesthetically pleasing and illustrates the epithelia of the esophagus, and I think does a better job of engaging lay readers than other images. I see no reason why we shouldn't include it in this article. LT910001 (talk) 22:01, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is actually not very pleasing, because it is such a small piece and it looks like it is cut slightly obliquely. Hence, I think putting this forward as an ideal biopsy is somewhat misleading. You might have to take my word for this. I would suggest a more conventional image. Snowman (talk) 22:34, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On my screen the double image consists of two different sized images, which is not artistic. This needs fixing. Snowman (talk) 23:35, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

Regarding the bit at the end of the article about an overview of anatomical terms, perhaps this would be more helpful if it were at the top instead of at the bottom. I say this because a reader would have to get to the very bottom of the article to see this link and may say to themselves "Oh, I could've used this earlier when I was going through the article." Just a thought. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 23:06, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles under "Anatomy", where it says "If article makes use of anatomical terminology, please add {{Anatomy-terms}} or {{AT}} as the first link in the 'see also' section.". Snowman (talk) 07:53, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it appears that you are correct in citing this MOS since that is exactly what it says. However, I stand by my original point and disagree with the MOS on this one. I personally think it makes more sense to put such a wikilink early in the article and not at the bottom in order to enhance its visibility and increase the likelihood of its use. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 08:05, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
TylerDurden8823 I have replied at the thread you have started at WT:MED. There is also an active WT:ANAT where such issues may be raised. --LT910001 (talk) 09:00, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would tend to agree that the AT tempate could be higher in the page; however, I put the AT template in the "See also" section, because this is approved in MoS. I opted for consistency within the Wiki. I would support putting this sort of link in the infobox (in the introduction). Snowman (talk) 09:45, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. My issue isn't with what you did, it's with the guideline. I agree with you that adding it to the info box would be a solution to this issue. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 14:18, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should article be split?

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Esophagus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:09, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Right, I'll take a look at this one - will make straightforward copyedits as I go (please correct me if I accidentally change the meaning) and list queries below: cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:09, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd switch Barrett's and O. cancer sections around to make it more hierarchical in severity.
  • You don't want a single sentence para in the lead. Looks weird - either tack it on to the precedding or rearrange
  • Ditto any other single sentence paras.
  • No section on traumatic esophageal tear or rupture (e.g. from recurrent vomiting)
  • Have a look at Esophageal disease as it is just a list and double check what's covered and what's not. The main article is not huge and can accommodate more material easily.

More later

Withdrawal

Hello, Casliber, I am withdrawing this nomination.

  1. I am really not feeling up to taking any more criticism. I know that this may seem like I am not "tough mutta", but having been what feels like harrassed for 15 days straight from GAN to GAN, as documented at the AN/I, but I do not want to be subjected again to an intensive and grilling process without any ability to compromise where I am personally responsible for the content of the articles, held to subjective standards, treated excessively harshly and not in good faith, and am still upset by what I feel has been a condescending and demeaning treatment by other users.
  2. Based on the history of my current GANs, the articles are liable to be rearranged and the prose substantially re-written before, during, or after the GAN. As this is the case, I see no reason to invest any energy in even superficially addressing concerns.
  3. As you know, a user made a significant number of edits during the nomination period and I feel I cannot and will not be responsible for the article and prose concerns, especially when I am simultaneously accused of WP:OWN.
  4. Lastly, there seems to be a lot of 'mission creep' in my last 3 reviews. Good articles are reviewed against six relatively specific criteria. There are subjective concerns reviewers would like addressed, minor additions to areas that already satisfy the GA criteria, and then major comments relating to an article's suitability. Often these are grouped together. I will try and ask my future GA reviewers to consider this and distinguish between these.

I am exhausted and disheartened and would like to wash my hands of this process. I have left a message on your talk page and am disheartened to see you referring to my previous GAs as "needing fixing" and characterising me as upset because of reviewers having "manner which annoys the writer" (User_talk:Casliber#Collaborations).

I don't expect you or any other users to agree with me or understand these reasons. I am not willing to invest any more personal energy in the GAN process. I will also not be contributing any further to editing of Cervix. I wish you well, --LT910001 (talk) 22:10, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll reply on my talkpage but close this shortly. Articles with medical content have sourcing issues that are quite specific and rigorously adhered to. There is concern in the community about the varying quality of GA reviews and the process is vulnerable based on the fact that an article has a single reviewer. An article isn't rated as Good because you've decided it is, but is up to the reviewer. The above comments aren't criticism but comments on how to improve the article. I think it is great that you are investing energy into a neglected area of wikipedia and the only reason that wikipedia is as big and comprehensive as it is is that successive waves of editors have picked up the batons passed to them by others. You have to see it as part of a bigger picture. I will open this up for Peer Review sohrtly as it'd be a shame for this one to now lie fallow too. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:48, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1. Well written?:

Prose quality:
Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources: - not source-checked.
Citations to reliable sources, where required:
No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects: - tears not covered, a shame as not a huge amount to do at first glance. other issues might have been missed but not explored in detail as nom withdrawn.
Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:


Overall:

- not listed as withdrawn by nominator, but some items for improvement listed. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:47, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Casliber. I'm sorry, I should clarify that you have made some very reasonable comments during the review. I am quite happy with reviewers making comments, and I think I have illustrated that in my other reviews. I don't know why, but I can't stop feeling very upset about the issue at AN/I, which makes me feel somewhat worthless as an editor and is affecting the way I am dealing with this review. I know you are perceiving this as one of "facts" vs. "sloppiness" but it was the harassment and feeling of being followed, unceasing criticism and inability of that user to compromise, followed by the rewriting of large aspects of the articles that has left me feeling very poor and, for the moment, I think it would be better if I took a step back. --LT910001 (talk) 02:35, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Esophagus/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:58, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Right, I will take a look and review as I (a) have not significantly edited the article and (b) gave it the once-over previously (which I had completely forgotten!) so some economy of work...comments to follow. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:58, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • You don't want a single sentence para in the lead. I think that one could add some info on symptoms to that third para-sentence.
    •  Done added some information about symptoms --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:55, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many blood vessels serve the esophagus, [with blood supply varying along its course]. - bracketed bit doesn't really add anything to sentence. I'd remove it. The sentence left is pretty short so I'd end it with a colon to segue into the list of arteries.
    •  Not done I want to highlight (unlike many organs) that the blood supply is quite different along its course. I can't think of another adequate way to rephrase this that conveys this information. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:55, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Development section, I think para 3 would go better after para 1 (?)
    •  Done I've reworded the section and integrated paragraph 3 into the other paragraphs - let me know what you think. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:55, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Esophageal candidiasis is a fairly common problem in immunocompromised people and I would mention it in the Esophagitis section
  • In the canine and ruminants, however, it is entirely striated to allow regurgitation to feed young (canines) or regurgitation to chew cud (ruminants). - presume you mean the first "canine" to be plural...would be good to link these words here
  • a human body would not be able to pass through the esophagus of a whale, which generally measures less than 10 cm in diameter, although in larger baleen whales it may be up to ten inches when fully distended. - consistency with units needed.
  • There is available an extensive rostrum on the anterior part of the esophagus in all carnivorous gastropods. - not really sure what this means...
    •  Partly done not sure myself and I can't find the citation that the reference uses. I don't feel like I can pass by this opportunity to mention carnivorous snails and slugs though, so I've linked rostrum and simplified the sentence a little.--Tom (LT) (talk) 23:55, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Earwig's copyvio is clear.
    •  Not done I presume this is an automated copyright check - I can't find any record of Earwig editing the article nor any plagiarised sections on google searches. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:55, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, looking goof - prose is engaging. Some of the bottom sections are a bit choppy (I rejigged the invertebrates section). I think we are just about there comprehensiveness-wise. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:00, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for taking this up, Casliber. For reasons I've emailed you (very good reasons :)! ) I'll be taking a holiday until July 20th. I'll respond to your review then. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:15, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking this up! I'm back and will get to the review over the weekend. --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, ready when you are. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Casliber done. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:55, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking again, I realise the article does not have an etymology section, such as in Cervix#Etymology_and_pronunciation - all material in lead should be in body of article. Also we can put colloquial terms and synonyms. Maybe some historical/old english or something too. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:50, 24 July 2016 (UTC) My bad, I forgot about History section. Let me read it again....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:52, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on, been busy. Now sitting down with a nice cup of coffee and reading again....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:42, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, reading through again, it sounds odd saying it consists of a fibromuscular tube - I mean, it is fibromuscular tube. But then that sounds funny. Maybe something like, "The esophagus (American English) or oesophagus (British English), commonly known as the food pipe or gullet, is an organ in vertebrates that conveys food from the pharynx to the stomach. It is a fibromuscular tube that is around 18–25 centimetres long in humans.", then mention peristaltic contractions after the sentence about the epiglottis.
  • Also reconcile lede (18-25 cm) with body of article (25 cm)
  • link foregut

Otherwise, I think we're there. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:00, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1. Well written?:

Prose quality:
Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:
Citations to reliable sources, where required:
No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:
Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:


Overall:

Pass or Fail: - ok, we're there. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:00, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Esophagus

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Esophagus's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Vet handbook":

  • From Equine anatomy: Giffen, James M.; Gore, Tom (1998) [1989]. Horse Owner’s Veterinary Handbook (2nd ed.). New York: Howell Book House. ISBN 0-87605-606-0.
  • From Equine nutrition: Giffen, James M. and Tom Gore. Horse Owner’s Veterinary Handbook., 2nd ed. New York:Howell Book House, 1989, 1998. ISBN 0-87605-606-0

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 23:21, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Esophagus"