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?
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anatomy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anatomy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnatomyWikipedia:WikiProject AnatomyTemplate:WikiProject AnatomyAnatomy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's Health on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HealthTemplate:WikiProject Women's Healthwomen's health articles
This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
The contents of the Cockscomb cervix page were merged into Cervix on September 8, 2018. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.
Latest comment: 7 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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 MichelleGDyason06:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
