# Talk:Thyroid

Needs etymology 173.73.130.14 (talk) 19:25, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

See Thyroid#History. Tom (LT) (talk) 09:35, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

This article is very disorganised and shocks the reader from the introduction. The introduction should only answer "why is the thyroid important?" not everything about the thyroid. I removed the repeats that was at the beginning of the article. Also the anatomy section needs significant editing as the information there is haphazardly put together without specifying directions or what's lateral and what's medial. As a med student, i find it very disorganised and unnecessarily difficult to read. M. M. H. 34 (talk) 15:08, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello M. M. H. 34 I have just reverted your edits. It has been passed as a Good article and as such any major changes need to be discussed not just executed and announced. Your removed repetitions from the lead are actually needed in articles. Details are repeated and often expanded on in the subsequent sections. Microanatomy is the preferred term on Anatomy pages. If you can clarify your edits concerning lateral and medial aspects please do so and add sources for the changes. Thank --Iztwoz (talk) 16:23, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I totally agree with you. This cannot be done by just one person. So I reverted the article to the "good article" criteria version. We should work from there. Also as you can see the introduction in the article does not include embryology or history because in a good article about thyroid you would not see those in the introduction. Again, introductions should only be about what is this thing and why is it important not how it is there or the accomplishment since the beginning of time. We should focus on the anatomy section that is named structure because it has some disorganisation even in this version. Thanks  M. M. H. 34 (talk) 19:11, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
It is normal for an article to evolve with further edits after a positive GA review, so your removal of content was unjustified. Your comment, "introductions should only be about what is this thing and why is it important not how it is there or the accomplishment since the beginning of time," is incorrect. For the introductory section, follow MOS:LEAD for content. Perhaps you could begin there with simple, constructive edits to include mention of other article features not present currently. Zefr (talk) 19:30, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
The link you provided says "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies."
This lead is distracted on covering every aspect of the thyroid gland which is not a realistic approach and not related to why the topic is notable. For example: adding about diseases, anatomy, physiology are good point but adding any pharmacology or surgical treatments does not really give an intro to what is thyroid.
Also there is "It gives the basics in a nutshell and cultivates interest in reading on"
And these parts are not really expected to be an interest for the average leader. When someone types thyroid, they don't expect a history of its treatment or a embryology of how its formed. They really want to know what is thyroid and what significant does have for everyone.
Besides, I think the good criteria article should be removed because it is far from being well-written or organised or give full information about its aspects in clear way.  M. M. H. 34 (talk) 19:44, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Also, By reverting the article. I can find that there were about 9000 characters added to it since 2017, and I can't find any discussion about those edits which include adding the "repeats", not in this discussion page nor in the archive.  M. M. H. 34 (talk) 19:27, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
M.M.H.34 - On looking over the page I have to agree with you that a lot of edits have been made that are not helpful to say the least. Many of these were made by a persistent blocked user with many edits made with no discussion and that were simply left. I am working on another page mostly at the moment but will make a few changes to the lead. Perhaps you could contribute as Zefr suggested. Thank you Iztwoz (talk) 22:54, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I have changed the statement that says the thyroid gland was only described since renaissance and cited by a website that was removed. I added citation for the beginning of the thyroid gland description in ancient greek.   M. M. H. 34 (talk) 20:57, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I think there is an error in the tests section. This sentence doesn't make sense to me: T3 is preferred, because in hypothyroidism T3 levels may be normal.
From what I know of thyroid tests, I think it is meant to say T4 is preferred. MissPersephone (talk) 03:28, 6 July 2023 (UTC)