Talk:Trachea

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Merge/Division

I think that the best thing to do here would be to divide things up between Vertebrate trachea and Invertebrate trachea.

Just saying "insect" trachea (as i have in the past) is not fully correct, as insects are just one class within the arthropod phylum to be tracheate.Hello if you arte like 12 and under dont read this is doesnt make sense trustr me

There's also another invertebrate trachea, i believe in molluscs, that should be mentioned.

So the question is now... do we want two pages with a disambiguation page for "Trachea" or do we want to keep the two sections on one page?

I'm inclined to go with the disambiguation.

In that case, the merge should go ahead, with the vertebrate trachea page. james waters 20:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

agreed - perhaps Tracheal system would be an appropriate title for the inverts (c.f. Malpighian tubule system) Goldfinger820 21:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Split or not, this article needs cleanup.--FUNKAMATIC (talk) 06:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Insects

To the insect statement could added "...where oxygen is absorbed into the body." --azwaldo 19:42, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Question

what rings keep the trachea open? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.116.153.58 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 19 September 2007

You may want to ask at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science. This page is for the discussion of the article, not questions about its subject, the trachea. Foobaz·o< 19:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

treachea explinactin for little kids

Your neck is the treaches air goes in and out!!!!!!!!!!!1 got ir get it good —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.247.143 (talk) 21:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Vertebrate trachea

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to merge Iztwoz (talk) 20:46, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason that these articles can't be displayed on the same page. Both are short, and the context provided by additional information will improve the quality and readability of both articles. Additionally, it's unnecessary to fragment these two articles, and this is not standard for the vast majority of articles, which harmoniously display human and other animal information on the same page. Therefore, I propose a merge LT910001 (talk) 01:50, 5 January 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.

Proposed merge with Invertebrate trachea

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to merge Iztwoz (talk) 20:46, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Same reason as stated above. LT910001 (talk) 01:50, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merging would mean treating functional equivalents, not homologous structures. That's possible, but I've seen similar mergers before, and then people started adding to the article which led often enough to a re-splitting. Also, do you wish to ALSO merge the non-analogous plant tracheae? Or not? Why?
I'd say keep things as they are. It's no bother, but merged it can become a bother later on. HMallison (talk) 22:06, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, while many articles mix human and non-human anatomy, that's often not well done, confusing or simply false. Human anatomy terminology is derived from human medicine, whereas the terminology of ALL OTHER LIVING THINGS is derived from non-human scientific study. Which means that all terms for things that do not perfectly conform the the rather absurdly altered human body are different - just think of terms of orientation! Mixing is prone to cause confusion (although I would much prefer more people would understand that huamns are animals). HMallison (talk) 22:09, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Think a merge would be a good move for reasons stated by proposer. Previous editor is arguing against his own case for allowing parallels to be drawn across the species. Usually as already decided separating human from animal anatomy is preferred but here the structure is quite small. Arguments that articles may need re-splitting if they become too large should not be an issue since re-splitting is an easy enough process and the chances are that there is not so much to be added. Iztwoz (talk) 12:40, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support With sufficient division there should be no confusion. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 07:16, 28 March 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.

Lab grown trachea

I think it should be noted in the article that the scientists managed to grow trachea into laboratory and they successfully implanted them into patient's bodies. WSJ, April 30, 2013 - Daily Mail, 8 July 2011. —  Ark25  (talk) 14:10, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out, Ark25. As you know Wiki is built around collaborative editing, and the best person to make the change is... you! If you feel this is noteworthy, how about you add a reference to this in the 'History' section? --LT910001 (talk) 20:33, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks LT910001, I will do it soon. —  Ark25  (talk) 10:39, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Tracheal rings

Stub hardly changed in nine years - better presented on target page Iztwoz (talk) 07:44, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Trachea. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:39, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ajpolino (talk · contribs) 20:54, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I can get through this review in the next few days. Looking forward to the read! Ajpolino (talk) 20:54, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well met again, Ajpolino! I look forward to your commentary. I'm happy to receive any feedback, however detailed, if it is likely to improve the article or relate to GA. I'll most likely not be able to respond to feedback next week owing to work commitments, but will be able to respond afterwards. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:25, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course, no rush at all. I hope all is well. Ajpolino (talk) 00:05, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for waiting, I'll start to respond this week. Also I was reflecting on your comment about taking some more GA reviews previously and noted I'm only marked as having done 9 reviews. I've taken some new reviews on, but also User:GA_bot/Stats have another 79 reviews I've done previously before I renamed my account. Just for the record :). --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also, thanks overall for your thorough review. I really appreciate your comments about readability as, after reading or writing an article for so long occasionally these things escape me, and I would prefer an article to be accurate and accessible to readers than otherwise.--Tom (LT) (talk) 23:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tom (LT): Two minor things, I'll mark them up here so they don't get lost in the back-and-forth below:

  1. In front of the lower trachea lies the manubrium of the sternum, the remnants of the thymus in adults, which has involuted over time, most quickly from puberty I'm still not sure I understand this sentence. Are you trying to point out two separate structures: (1) the manubrium of the sternum, and (2) the remnants of the thymus (which involuted over time)? The way the sentence is worded now, it gives one the impression that the manubrium of the sternum IS the remnant of the thymus (i.e. it reads as if "the remnants of the thymus in adults" is an explanatory clause giving further detail about the manubrium). If the manubrium and the thymus remnants are two different things, then a well-placed "and" or "as well as" would make that sentence clearer.
  2. Clinical significance>Congenital disorders - This section still has a "citation needed" tag (following the bit about tracheo-oesophageal pucture), as well as an uncited sentence about Mounier-Kuhn syndrome (which should be easy to cite; it hardly looks controversial). Could you deal with those two things? I hope it won't take long.

Otherwise it looks great! I'm glad to see the article much-improved! I hope all is well on your end. Ajpolino (talk) 18:15, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Done thanks for waiting Ajpolino, and likewise hope you are well.--Tom (LT) (talk) 09:37, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Tom (LT): Super! Then I'm happy to mark this as a pass. Per your note above, don't sweat the reviews too much. Your time is probably better spent generating content rather than reviewing it, especially if you don't find reviewing to be as compelling as editing. However, unfortunately, if we'd like timely review of our GA nominations, I think we'll have to do more than our fair share of GA reviews. But that's ok; it's kind of a miracle this site runs at all. Having to wait a while for review, or do a few distasteful reviews is not a big deal. As a further aside, if you'd like Legobot to put the correct number of reviews next to your name, you can manually merge the tallies at User:GA bot/Stats (as e.g. BlueMoonset did here and here). Again, it was a pleasure to learn about the windpipe! I'll see you around. Ajpolino (talk) 18:21, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  • Lead - This is the only complete tracheal ring, the others being incomplete rings of reinforcing cartilage. This sentence came as a bit of a surprise, since I didn't know why we were talking about rings. Perhaps it and the following sentence would make more sense to the uninitiated if you first introduced that the trachea's structure is provided by 16-22 rings, etc. Then tell me that the cricoid cartilage at the front end is the only complete ring.
    •  Done that was indeed confusing. Reworded. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead - The trachea develops in the second month of development. - Reads redundant "develops.. development." Any other word you could use?
  • Lead - the second paragraph of the lead is a bit jarring. Each sentence seems unrelated to the one before. Any chance you could smooth it out?
  • Structure>Nearby structures - I've wikilinked thorax, but if it is truly synonymous with "chest" (as our article Thorax suggests), then perhaps that would be a more accessible word.
    •  Done not completely the same but the piped wikilink gets the job done and this is easier for accessibility purposes. I've also wikilinked neck for symmetry--Tom (LT) (talk) 23:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Structure>Nearby structures - with the isthmus of the gland overlying the second to fourth rings, with the lobes of the thyroid stretching to the level of the fifth or sixth cartilage. is a bit confusing to read ("with..., with..."). Can you rephrase somehow?
    •  Done reworded two or three sentences to make this easier to understand.--Tom (LT) (talk) 23:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Structure>Nearby structures - In front of the lower trachea lies the manubrium of the sternum, "manubrium" required me to take a quick trip to sternum. Not the end of the world, but would "top of the sternum" be not equally correct the sternum is formed from three structures (manubrium, body and xiphisternum)?
    •  Not done the sternum is formed from three structures (manubrium, body and xiphisternum) so this is useful to note.--Tom (LT) (talk) 23:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Structure>Nearby structures - In front of the lower trachea lies the manubrium of the sternum, the remnants of the thymus in adults at first glance I thought "the remnants of the thymus..." was an appositive explaining what the manubrium of the sternum was. Now I'm fairly certain it's a list of two items. Can you clarify the text?
    •  Doing... the thymus involutes over time; I will have a think about how to note this --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Structure>Blood and lymphatic supply - Arteries that supply the trachea do in small branches that supply the trachea from the side. reads weird. Perhaps "do so in small..."?
    •  Done oh yes, missing a small joining word there. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Structure>Blood and lymphatic supply - they split into inferior and superior branches I had to google what inferior and superior mean in anatomy. My personal preference, would be to reword or wikilink the first instances here to Anatomical_terms_of_location#Main_terms, but this is not a requirement for the review, and I'll leave the decision to you.
  • Structure>Development - Any chance there's an easy way to clarify but also more variable in... site in relation to its surrounding structures.? Are there particular structures that are sometimes in different places in children? If this would require lengthy explanation, it would be nice, but not necessary for this review. If it's easily explained, that would help.
    •  Partly done have reworded the first half of the sentence, the second I think is pretty clear. The surrounding structures (organs, blood vessels, bones) have a more variable position in children as they grow. Happy if you can propose a more clear statement though. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Structure>Microanatomy - glandular, modified simple columnar epithelial... what does "modified simple" mean here?
    •  Done removed, those adjectives were not helpful when describing goblet cells, the main point being they are column-shaped --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clinical significance>Intubation - The epiglottic vallecula is an important anatomical landmark for carrying out this procedure. I'm not sure what this means.
    •  Done agree, also it's off-topic, so I have removed.--Tom (LT) (talk) 23:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clinical significance>Imaging - In particular, the right paratracheal stripe should be no greater than 4 mm from the right margin of the trachea. "should be", or else you have a disease of the trachea? Or else you have a problem with your radiograph? Or else you're not looking at a human neck? Can you clarify?
    •  Done have in fact removed the whole sub-section. I think it goes without saying that large organs or structures obviously form landmarks that are important for imaging or surgery. I don't think this needs a special mention. The part about the paratracheal stripe is I think a bit too specific and falling into WP:HOWTO territory, so I've removed it. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  • The open to the Structure section notes The trachea is surrounded by 16 - 22 rings of hyaline cartilage. The microanatomy subsection has The trachea is surrounded by 16-20 rings of hyaline cartilage. They have the same cited source so I assume the disagreement (20 vs. 22) is just a typo?
  • There's a citation needed tag in Clinical significance>Congenital disorders. Can you deal with it?
  • Same section - can you find a ref for Mounier-Kuhn syndrome is a very rare congenital disorder of an abnormally enlarged trachea.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

a (major aspects): b (focused):
  • Clinical significance>Inflammation notes that tracheitis can be caused by bacteria or viruses, then only discusses bacterial causes (which I assume is because the available ref was about bacterial tracheitis). Anything on viral tracheitis? Or is it rare and therefore not covered by sources? At the very least, I assume the last sentence of the section (regarding antibiotics) refers only to bacterial tracheitis?
    •  Done and also reworded and added to that section--Tom (LT) (talk) 06:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clinical significance>Transplant and bioengineering - In 2008, a Colombian woman, Claudia Castillo (30), received a trachea transplant using her own stem cells. feels a bit random. Is there any source describing this as an important moment for trachea transplantation? If so, could you expand on this a bit. Perhaps you could merge this with the short paragraph immediately above.
    •  to do... --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      •  Done I've removed all the references. I don't think that the two people mentioned are notable enough from a global perspective of the trachea, or will be particularly notable as time passes, so I have removed both references and also reworded and simplified the section. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Other" section is... strange. Can you incorporate those links into the text elsewhere, move them to "See also", or something?

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:

Pass/Fail:

Science

Trachea 175.176.87.63 (talk) 17:46, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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