Talk:Thymus

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cinadon36 (talk · contribs) 13:31, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi all, I will have a look at this article. Cinadon36 13:31, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for taking up this review. I look forward to your assessment. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:23, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Good job Tom (LT). I 've just read it one time and it really looks fine. Before I go into a detailed review, I got a question for you. Since the article is on human Thymus, I didn't understand why are there sections on "Other animals" and "Society and culture". The latter section is a bit awkward since it consists of only one sentence. Cinadon36 12:20, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks for your initial review Cinadon36, I look forward also to your detailed review. Sections are titled according to the relevant manual of style entry (WP:MEDMOS#Anatomy). If it is OK with you, I prefer to leave 'society and culture' as, although it's a small section, it may be expanded by other editors in the future, although I'm not aware of any specific things that should be included. Other animals is a standard heading in most anatomical articles. It is termed 'other' in relation to humans (also an animal). --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:46, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
  • @Cinadon36 am about to move house so have packed all my books and am somewhat distracted :P. Would you mind putting this on hold for two weeks? --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:03, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

• • • @Tom (LT): pls take your time.Cinadon36 20:36, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
      • @Cinadon36, done. This article was particularly difficult to write and improve, as it has quite technical information that is difficult to write or improve in an accessible format, I've done what I think is up to GA standard but will continue to work on it in the future as I think there is still room for improvement... --Tom (LT) (talk) 02:52, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

On Verifiability

• Most sources easily pass WP:MEDORG . But I am not sure about radiopaedia, used twice, number 24 of current version.[1] I am not sure that it is a RS. Cinadon36 19:18, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Doing... happy to provide an alternate source. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:46, 19 April 2020 (UTC)  Done --Tom (LT) (talk) 02:13, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
• Two sentences are missing a source. "Thymectomy may be necessary to treat the disease" and "Thymectomy is not indicated for the treatment of primary thymic lymphomas. However, a thymic biopsy may be necessary to make the pathologic diagnosis." I am sure it wont be hard to find a ref for these two pieces of information. Cinadon36 19:29, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Doing... --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:46, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
    •  Done --Tom (LT) (talk) 02:52, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• Also - citation will be provided or wording changed. Not sure if I overlooked these or they crept in post nomination... probably a combination. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:46, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Doing... A few sentences in 'other animals' also missing sources. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:46, 19 April 2020 (UTC)  Done --Tom (LT) (talk) 02:13, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Doing... Also here: "Thymic cysts are uncommon lesions, with about 150 cases being reported in scientific literature..." --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:46, 19 April 2020 (UTC)  Done --Tom (LT) (talk) 02:13, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• Apart from the issues raised above, no other issues on verifiability (original research or copyright violations) were spotted.Cinadon36 19:32, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality, well written, Stability, media

Easily pass all these criteria. I would have used the additional images within the main body of the article, at section Development. But then, there would be too many images there. Cinadon36 08:00, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

On prose

Ok, here are some of my comments on prose. Sorry for moving on too slowly on this GAN. Cinadon36 08:55, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

• At Structure, there is a section for microanatomy, but no mention of macroanatomy. I feel it should be mentioned somewhere where the thymus is sited. There is a sentence at the lede, but it is not the best place possible, it should be somewhere at the main body of the article.Cinadon36 08:55, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Currently the article says: "and stretch from below the thyroid in the neck to as low as the cartilage of the fourth rib.[1] The lobes are covered by a capsule.[3] The thymus lies beneath the sternum, rests on the pericardium, and is separated from the aortic arch and great vessels by a layer of fascia" in the structure section, which is a description of the location of the thymus. I worry that this isn't clear to lay readers but am having trouble thinking of a better way to describe it at the moment. Do you have any suggestions? --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:00, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
    • What about "Thymus is sited/located in the centre of the chest/thorax, it lies just behind the sternum in a space called anterior mediastinum" Or something similar? In any case, I trust your better judgement on this, do not feel obliged to follow my suggestions. Cinadon36 08:34, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
      •  Done. Have included something similar in the lead and structure section, let me know what you think. --Tom (LT) (talk) 02:52, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• Some of this is because of hormones and cytokines secreted by the thymus, including thymulin, thymopoietin, and thymosins. Is it possible to clarify which part(cortex, medulla)/cells are producing these molecules? Cinadon36 09:03, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Partly done have clarified the sentence, but as the cells are present in different concentrations within the medulla and cortex, and therefore these hormones are going to be present in various concentrations throughout, I don't think I'm going to find a very useful answer here . --Tom (LT) (talk) 02:52, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
    • I think it 's adequate. Cinadon36 12:56, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• lede:Cells in the thymus can be divided into thymic stromal cells and cells of hematopoietic origin (derived from bone marrow resident hematopoietic stem cells). I cant find a discussion of this sentence in the main body of the article.Cinadon36 13:22, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Done thanks for noticing this, I have removed it and done my best to simplify and improve the lead. --Tom (LT) (talk) 02:52, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
• Clinical significance is not covered at the lede. Cinadon36 13:38, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Done
• Virtual Slidebox at Univ. Iowa Slide 287 site content not accessible to the reader.[2]Cinadon36 14:17, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
  •  Done good pickup, this must have changed over time as I recall it being publically accessible. I've nominated the entire template set for deletion. --Tom (LT) (talk) 02:52, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Great, passing, thanks Tom (LT) for such a beautiful article. It is not far from FA but that's another story. Wishing you all the best, Cinadon36 12:59, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

This section is grossly false: "Removal of the thymus in infancy results in often fatal immunodeficiency, because functional T cells have not developed.[2] In older children and adults, which have a functioning lymphatic system with mature T cells also situated in other lymphoid organs, the effect is lesser, and limited to failure to mount immune responses against new antigens."

This is dangerously incorrect since pretty much any major infant heart surgery involves removal of the thymus. These patients go on to live decades. There is no evidence whatsoever that these patients suffer "fatal immunodeficiency".

Source: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/2150135111403328 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.129.183.124 (talk) 03:29, 7 October 2020 (UTC)