Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/December 9, 2014

could some more work be done on this blurb?
 * 1) The second sentence adds nothing; that can be said of most cancers (perhaps that sentence could be removed and something more relevant from the lead added??).
 * 2) "Other possible symptoms include ... " ... possible is redundant to include, and all symptoms for most conditions are "possible" ... the possible adds nothing (I've removed it from the article).
 * 3) " Endometrial cancer occurs most commonly in the decades after menopause ... " ugh, redundancy again, "decades after" menopause is the same as "after menopause" ... I've removed it from the article.
 * 4) " ... and is also associated with high blood pressure and diabetes." Also is almost always redundant, and is not adding anything here.  The "also" could refer back to associated with excessive estrogen exposure, but that didn't make it into the lead (??)
 * 5)  Since some of this text differs from what my personal ob/gyn said, I checked the citations for "as in most birth control pills", and am unable to find it ??  I also do not find that text in the article?  Perhaps I've missed it?
 * 6) * That's in Williams Gyn - the combined oral contraceptive and IUD are estrogen-progesterone combinations; the only birth control pill that is not a combination is the progesterone only pill. If you'd like a PDF copy of the endometrial cancer chapter to check this, I'm happy to send you one - just shoot me a Wikipedia email and I'll respond with the attachment. (I only just bought a hard copy of the book and the PDF doesn't have page numbers - that's why they're missing pages, I'll be adding them in this afternoon. Finals hell delayed that a bit.) Keilana&#124;Parlez ici 16:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay. Page numbers there are added. I unfortunately don't have a physical copy of Comprehensive Gynecology or Current Surgery, only an online version, which doesn't have page numbers. Keilana&#124;Parlez ici 19:37, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Sandy Georgia (Talk) 15:33, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Another redundancy ... "...  more than 80% of all cases ... " all cases are cases.
 * 2) By the way, there are no page numbers on scores of book sources (see talk), which is a big FAC miss.  (Since you may be sleeping according to your time zone, and this goes up less than 10 hours, I'll also ping  and  to look at this.)


 * , that ping didn't work - so I assume that your pings of and  didn't either.  It might be because you used ul rather than [forgot these words!] u, I don't know.  I happened to log back on and saw this page near the top of my watchlist.  Anyway, I'm aligned with UTC (i.e. it's just after 4pm now) so I'll see what I can do. BencherliteTalk 16:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Um, oh. You mean I've been pinging wrong all this time?  OK, I have a newly developed household (not endometrial) plumbing emergency that requires immediate attention, so I'll catch up later ... y'all can stop pinging me, now that I know you're on board. :)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:17, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, those templates both redirect to the same end place so I don't know what the problem was! I've rejigged it now - let me know what you think. I'll be online on and off before midnight so will see any replies before the blurb goes live.  BencherliteTalk 16:27, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Bencher! Much better.  I still do have one issue, though, that I don't think should be in the article or the blurb.  Yes, we are supposed to use "lay person" terminology instead of medical jargon whenever possible, but referring to menstruation as a woman's period is not useful or meaningful to a global audience (that is, people for whom English is not first language ... for example, the concept of menstruation as period does not exist in Spanish (or at least not widespread, anyway ... some people with English exposure have crossed over), it is a US colloquialism).  Other languages do not use that word, so IMO, we should be saying menstruation, not period (throughout the article). Also, I now see where the "also" redundancy was introduced; that should be reverted.  The main point (that endometrial cancer is associated with excessive estrogen exposure, which is different than the "combined" issue, and it is also associated with diabetes, high blood pressure, etc) was lost in 's edit.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:49, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't add an "also", actually, I removed the unnecessary repetition of "Endometrial cancer". - Dank (push to talk) 17:51, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I know you didn't add an also; you removed a clause and left an also, which I later said was redundant, and now see it was the result of removing a factor. Why did you remove an important factor (that endometrial cancer is associated with excessive estrogen exposure ... it is also associated with diabetes, high blood pressure, whatev ... )  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:53, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * On the second question ... thinking it over, since we have such an active and competent MED project, it might make more sense for me to bring these articles to MED's attention than to try to sort out potential redundancies on my own. My thinking FWIW was that "Endometrial cancer is also associated with excessive estrogen exposure" was redundant to the next sentence, "Whereas taking estrogen alone increases the risk of endometrial cancer ...". - Dank (push to talk) 18:07, 8 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Bencher's original wording was accurate per the article; excessive estrogen exposure, and estrogen/protesterone combo are two different things. I've also pinged WT:MED about why we are not linking to the FA Menstrual cycle in the lead, rather the c-class menstruation (and I've separately fixed a redirect from menstrual period).  I'm not a biologist, so don't know what the fine line is between all those terms, but we've got an FA we might take better advantage of in the lead.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:20, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your work on this, Sandy. - Dank (push to talk) 18:21, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You are most welcome, Dank! Among others, one concern I have about recent reviews at FAC is the lack of serious focus on making sure the leads are near perfect, and summaries of the article.  Leads need to be seriously scrutinized, specifically because they are used to build the blurb, and those building the blurb shouldn't be tasked with sorting out issues!  That is partially why the lead is specifically singled out in WP:FACR.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:24, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I'm going to start spending more time looking at leads at FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 18:27, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I linked to menstrual cycle. Been meaning to study things like drop-down links and who goes there. Star articles linked off constellations got some hits. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:15, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Cas, should that be changed in the article, too? And as an Aussie, do you have an opinion on whether we should say menstruation or period?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:21, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * , I know this is finished and gone, but just FYI, both menstruation and period are common terms in BrEng. (It's a moot point whether period is "correct" in encyclopaedic BrEng, but neither term would confuse a British audience). - SchroCat (talk) 11:26, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * , thanks for letting me know ... the discussion at WT:MED came to the same conclusion, based on a few languages (perhaps Google translate, unsure). While we may still have some audience here, having followed that TFA through its day (where one vandal edit stuck for 26 minutes :/), I do hope to reinforce that while MOS-y stuff may seem like minor nit-picking, it's exactly the kind of stuff that people pick on re TFA. I'm not sure anyone is still reviewing for MOS at FAC, but MOS oversights tend to result in WP:ERRORS reports, so let's get back on it :)  Several editors I've not previously encountered went through this article while it was TFA and found more MOS stuff even after my corrections; one of the many ways we could reinvigorate FAC is to watch for editors like that, and go ask them to start reviewing FACs.  (Reminder to self to go do that now ... ) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 13:29, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Per "The second sentence adds nothing; that can be said of most cancers (perhaps that sentence could be removed and something more relevant from the lead added??). " Yes this can be said of all cancers. We are clarifying what a cancer is so the definition of Endometrial cancer is not simply cancer of the endometrium. An effort to keep the lead accessible to non experts which I think is important. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:16, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * so, you want the second sentence here to come back? Then, I'm not seeing where it accomplishes what you want it to accomplish ? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:22, 8 December 2014 (UTC)