Jump to content

Talk:Cervix

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleCervix has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 28, 2014Good article nomineeNot listed
June 9, 2014Good article nomineeListed
March 3, 2023Peer reviewReviewed
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on June 23, 2014.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the cervix, which in adult women is much smaller than the rest of the uterus, is twice as large during childhood as the body of the uterus?
Current status: Good article

New Merger proposal

[edit]

I propose that Cockscomb cervix be merged into Cervix#Anatomical abnormalities. CV9933 (talk) 13:40, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No objections after two weeks - Merge completed. CV9933 (talk) 14:33, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Fertility Section

[edit]

hi, i am reading the fertility section and i am having trouble with its tone. In particular, its use of the term "quality". And the judgement of this said quality seems to derive from sites external to the woman. Moreover, most of the section is not cited. The citation that is given, i.e., 12 the question is directed to the person whose fertility is the topic, that is, the woman, which i discerned only from its title which uses 'your'. But in Wikipedia, this article, the judge is not the woman, but instead an other. As Wikipedia is supposed to be written from a neutral perspective (an impossibility!) this section is obviously not congruent to that Wikipedia policy. Instead, this article places the assessment of the "quality" of that which pertains to woman, to elsewhere, that is, an other than herself. *a cis woman growing a philosopher's beard MichelleGDyason 06:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]