Talk:Human hair growth

Comments
Nicely done. I suggest a couple of things here.
 * links to other articles and back from other articles
 * 1) If you're using a term or concept that is well-known, or important, there likely is an article on it. You should find the article and link to it.  To link, you put the article name in b rackets  like this Article name  If the article name does not fit your text, do this your text (2-3 words of it).
 * 2) You might also go to the page and see if there is a way to link back to your article in the same way, so your article is not an Orphan.
 * citations
 * 1) Be sure to use the proper citation form, either using the templates, or manually. See here for examples on how to do this properly. You've got your cites added, but they need to be properly formatted.
 * Orphan
 * 1) That means no other articles link to this. I've de-orphaned it a little bit, but you'll need to do more.  There is a link on the side that tells you what links to the article.
 * Copy edit
 * 1) Needs a copy edit, but the issues aren't flagrant. Some of your paragraphs are very skimpy, and could use fleshing out.
 * Pictures
 * 1) Could use a picture in the lead.
 * 2) Could also use a few other kinds of pictures, perhaps showing how something looks, or whatever. Use your imagination. You've done a nice job. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

If you're going to use the citations of an other wikipedia article, you need to provide those citations. You mentioned that you verified it, so you should actually cite those sources. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

This is a well written article Just a few things you should look into fixing. The header quite a few pictures, it may be a few too many. For clarity sake, you may want to spread the pictures our a bit. Some of the paragraphs seem to have a small amount of information in them. You may want to expand upon them or maybe combine a few together if possible. Also, there are a few empty headings which i am sure you are working on filling. Just thought I'd mention it. Other than that, this is a well done article. Hope the rest goes well.Benro129 (talk) 00:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

This article is very well written and easy to understand. I was very interested in the section about goosebumps and I think it would be great if you could expand on the science behind that. Also I thought of two topics that you might be interested in adding to your article. The first is the difference in hair growth between different cultures/ethnicities; and the second is hair growth disorders, such as werewolf syndrome and other little-known hair-related illnesses. Good luck on the rest! Paraskevia8 (talk) 04:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

This article is coming along really well. It is well written and informative without being wordy. I feel like you do a good job being concise but also getting the main points across thoroughly. Some sections could, however, probably be expanded on for extra clarity as some are kind of skimpy. I would probably change the layout of the lead section. The way it is formatted now with the big, descriptive paragraphs and several pictures is distracting and doesn't flow right. I also think that a majority of the text in the lead section could be better used in the body of the article rather than in the lead. All in all, I think this is going to turn into a very good article. Mitchel2 (talk) 22:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey! Its Jackie from class and I really enjoyed reading your article!! It was very interesting and I learned a lot from it! Great job Noeljack 18:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Review
This was well written for wikipedia it's very straight and to the point and easy to understand. I think that maybe you could rearrange the pictures in the lead so that the layout is better, because now, with the text appearing in the middle of the two first pictures, it is confusing and looks kinda off. In the "Leg,arm, chest, and back hair" section it says that the hair around becomes darker and more dense, but why does it do this? You mention puberty but what chemically or physically makes this happen in the body? It was unclear to me and I feel like many people would ask that question. For example, does the hormones cause the "melanin" which was mentioned at the beginning of the article to change the "predisposed color" of the hair in that area? In the removal practice you say that these techniques are for "aesthetic" reasons, maybe cosmetic would be a better word choice? For the citations, many don't have page numbers and the websites are not formatted right. I didn't have mine right either and someone mentioned it to me because it helps the quality when the article gets accessed. And lastly, for the myths about hair. I think it would be easier if you grouped the true myths together and the flase ones to give the article better organizaton. Overall I really liked this it was really interesting and easy to understand and I learned a lot from it. Megzie113 (talk) 22:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I think this is a very well organized article, and very informational! I also like that this article is easy to read and understand. I never really thought very much about the make-up and growth cycle of hair, but after reading this article, I am absolutely more informed about hair, which is a good thing! I would look at your citations though. They seem to be formatted incorrectly, or at least missing page numbers or website addresses. Also, in the “Regimens” section, you may want to add information! ☺ You may not have completed this section yet, but this is just a friendly reminder! Lastly, in section four, Androgenic hair, you may want to add further clarification or information about leg, arm, chest, and back hair. Some of it seems unfinished. I think the article is very good though, and I have definitely learned a lot about hair from reading your article! Donovank (talk) 01:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

More comments
Looking good. I've set up a gallery of photos, as an example of one thing you could do with some of the photos. It's up to you. At this point, I'd move what you have in your lead into the main body of the article. It no longer serves as a summary, as it used to do. The Lead (or summary) usually covers all the main points of the article, but doesn't usually need citations, unless you actually quote something. You'll have to write a summary, though, for the lead section. You might retain one picture to use on the right side of the lead. Something like this.



Human hair grows everywhere on the body except for the palms of the hands, soles of the feet, the lips, and the eyelids, apart from eyelashes. Like skin, hair is an epithelium. Unlike skin, it is more stratified, squamous, keratinized epithelium because it is made of multi-layered, flat cells and contains the protein keratin, whose rope-like filaments provide structure and strength to the hair shaft.

Hair follows a specific growth cycle with three distinct and concurrent phases: anagen, catogen, and telogen phases. Each phase has specific characteristics that determine the length of the hair. All three phases occur at simultaneously, on different hair shafts.

The body has different types of hair, including vellus hair, androgenic hair, and pubic hair, each with its own type of cellular construction. The different construction gives the hair unique characteristics, serving specific purposes: warmth, protection, sensitivity, ... you'll have to do the rest (and correct what I've put here) -- Auntieruth55 01:23, April 10, 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: someone already has moved the page. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Human Hair Growth → Human hair growth — Redirect page should be the new article title. Brangifer (talk) 05:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Human hair growth → No new title (delete the redirect function)

This request is made per our Manual of style guidelines for article titles. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Nomination is sound but the article is is a little strange. Quite a bit of the content does not relate to the nominal subject of the article and should be moved (Why Humans Have Hair, Androgenic Hair, Hair Removal Practices).  —   AjaxSmack   07:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * That may be, but we need to first make the move, then discuss with the university class (who is writing this article as a project) what to do. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Do what? —   AjaxSmack   14:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Depending on their plans with this article, we'll need to decide about any page moves to those suggestions of yours. That's all. I think we should try to work with them and let them learn from this process. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I meant "Do what?" as "(idiomatic, colloquial) An intensified version of what or huh," i.e., a politer form of WTF (I forgot the italics). I read a little more a get the gist of what's going on.  Certainly an interesting project and the results almost have to be better than most of the usual shite editing.  The page move is fine (support) but the off topic content still needs to either be tied to the topic a lot better or moved.  Good luck boys and girls.  —   AjaxSmack   21:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Questions
As a regular editor here, I just discovered that this is a university project. Good for you! I'm wondering if I may edit the article, or you'd rather do it all yourselves? (You can't really stop me per Wikipedia's rules, but I'm interested in helping, not hindering you. I have quite a bit of experience and could give some advice.) If you'd rather I just give advice here and let you do it, that might be best. What do you think? -- Brangifer (talk) 05:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I am the instructor, and thank you for asking. The student who is editing this page is working hard on it, but I think she could use some guidance and support&mdash;more than I can offer.  B, I encourage you to work with Brangifer on this, if you're willing.  Brangifer, she'll be online eventually, but you might try contacting her via her email link.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * She is welcome to ask me for help and advice on my talk page. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

List formatting
Just a note to explain what I did to your list of references:

The way you had listed them (perfectly normal for a word processor) confuses the MediaWiki software into thinking that you had a bunch of single-item lists, interspersed with a bunch of brief paragraphs.

So for people who use screen readers, which apparently have the annoying habit of announcing lists, reading the reference list would sound like this: "A list of one item.  (Read first citation.  Read paragraph describing first citation).  A list of one item.  (Read second citation.  Read paragraph describing second citation).  A list of one item.  (Read third citation...)"

The change I made unifies it into a single list, so the screen readers should now say, "A list of 24 items," and then read all 24 refs, straight through to the end, without stopping to remind the user that each item is formatted as a list. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Ref formatting
Is there any particular reason that you're enclosing your perfectly valid parenthetical references in  tags? The use of tags is not actually required on Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * "Parenthetical references" is an essay, not policy. The standard method of inline citation is preferred. That's one thing that needs fixing. The  tags is a step in the right direction, but the list of references needs to be moved into the notes so there aren't two sections. That's duplication. I'll show how it's done and let Bmonicole do the rest. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:CITE, which is not "just" an essay, explicitly permits the use of author-date/parenthetical systems, which are preferred or required by several major academic style guides, including the MLA and APA guides.
 * Separating short and full citations is also explicitly permitted, and is both relatively common and highly desirable when different pages of the same sources are used to support different sections.
 * Editors are free to use whatever citation system they want: it does not have to be the one that you and I might happen to choose.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Then Bmonicole can choose which style to use. In the nearly five years I've been here I've never seen that style used here, but it must be done somewhere. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions for article improvement
There are too many sections here that are not currently holding any information the headers for these sections should be deleted. The images at the top of the article should be more evenly spread out throughout the article, with additional freely licensed images going to the commons repository. Lastly, the image sizes should not be forced, as I suspect is the case with the first image in the article. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It's normal to force the image size for an image at the top of the lead, and a size of up to 300 px in width is authorized at MOS:IMAGES. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Some changes
Hi Bmonicole. Per the comments on my talk page, I have made several edits which you should analyze and then copy. They are all related to formatting, not content. Even the most impeccably written article, with very good content, will not pass review if the formatting isn't also impeccable. The ref formatting I have used is a simple format that's often used and is allowed. There are more complex types which are also used. I'll let other editors comment on that if necessary. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:28, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much Bmonicole (talk) 20:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Content
Some of the content on this page does not pertain to human hair growth and would probably be best on the main hair page ( section such as shaving practices and purpose of hair ). Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I have gone ahead and moved some of the content. If someone could double check the references to make sure none of them got messed up in the move that would be great. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 09:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Referencing
The article has some issues with reference formatting. We have a tool that can quickly format reference properly . Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Some of the references (especially #4) are VERY weak, I recommend finding better references. --Mackie Drew 06:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vermishis (talk • contribs)

Myths
Section on myths usually fall under trivia and thus are usually discouraged by Wikipedia. Wondering if this could be combined into the other sections of the article more as a presentation of information? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Caption
The caption for the lead picture is kind of a wallbanger. The caption notes how blond hair is caused by a lack of pigments in the hair, but the picture is quite obviously depicting a bottle-blond. I can't think of a more appropriate caption offhand though. Any suggestions? - T ainted C onformity   SCREAM 06:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No need to lose sleep over this one. It's not really all that clear or obvious. Her hair could still be naturally this light; there are many people like this. The darker strains underneath don't mean anything, you can see them in natural blondes as well. There's also the possibility that her hair is weathered – when the pigment is "washed out" by sunlight, turning middle or light blond to a very light shade. Even if her hair might not be quite as light naturally, and bottle bleached, it's quite possibly (even likely) still a shade of blond. Dark blond, that is. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:05, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Why does hair grow so long on the human head?
The article doesn't seem to answer this question. Although, as humans, we're used to the idea that head hair can grow to extreme length compared with that elsewhere on the body, to another species this must surely seem to be as defining a feature for the human species as, say, a peacock's tail is for that species. It doesn't seem to serve any function, other than display. Is that correct? How and why did human hair growth patterns evolve in this way? Has work been done on this? Shouldn't it be cited in this article? Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * My best guess is that, like many things, it simply doesn't belong in this section, as it would detract from the main subject, but also is apparently insignificant enough to get very little scientific interest, and even less of which ends up published on here. A whole new page would be a waste, but itd clutter up the main page. 74.128.56.194 (talk) 20:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Out of Place Keratin Formations?
Ive been trying to find an explination for this, but as I have been unable to, I decided to just put it out there. At least three times in my life, ive ended up with a red, sore and not infected hair follicle. This would grow into a sharp point, and becomes easy to remove. It is quite deifnetly not normal hair; it has properties much similar to a fingernail shard. They've only ever grown on my left arm, and like i said, very very rarely. But it seemed a good thing to mention. 74.128.56.194 (talk) 20:39, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Rate of growth
A recent addition provides possibly dubious information (6" per year) from a non-RS. Unfortunately this same information is copied by many other sources we wouldn't usually use for biomedical information, which requires sources that meet the quality guidelines at WP:MEDRS. Even if true, this source doesn't meet that standard. We need secondary medical sourcing.

Maybe I'm wrong, but if this were universally true (maybe a few people really do have such a slow growth rate!) barbers and stylists would lose a large part of their work. If I'm wrong, I'd sure like to know because this seems to contradict personal experience (about 12" per year) and observation. I phoned my barber and he laughed when he heard about this. His comment: "I'd be out of work if that were true!" -- Brangifer (talk) 19:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't get what's the problem; obviously this is only a rough rule-of-thumb average and (as rightly emphasised in the cited website, which is not nearly as dogmatic about the matter as you two) there is tremendous individual variation in growth rates, from 0.03 to 0.3 or 0.4 or perhaps even (in rare cases) up to 2 m/y. FWIW, I've always heard and read the 1 cm/month figure, too. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:29, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


 * As in all Wikipedia articles mentioning hair growth rate, the given values don't match real life hair lengthes. Most people can easily grow their hair to classical length (just where the legs begin) and beyond if the hair is taken good care of. 7 years * 1cm/month is around waistlength, 2 years * 1cm/month is 24cm (canopy hair not even reaching the shoulders) - both highly unrealistic boundaries. Values should be able to explain this hair length as well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOz5YZR8MgY. BTW, Guinness record hair is 5m long: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-BIG37J4rLU0/Tc6yyOWcyqI/AAAAAAAAABs/lWR5Mt1tcQ4/s1600/Xie-Qiuping-longhair2.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.193.77.26 (talk) 04:28, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Age
At which age appears? I mean I remember bald babies, even cartoons have bald babies like Tommy from Rugrats by Nickelodeon... If someone knows better it would be good thing to add...Undead Herle King (talk) 15:35, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

How long can it grow?
Is there a natural limit to the hair growth, what was the longest hair in history? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.58.135.188 (talk) 15:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

HAIR GROWTH AT LAOFOYE HAIRCARE CENTRE Ancient Secrets Fomular

He suffered hair loss for a few years due to work stress and insomnia. In desperation, he cropped his hair to prevent hair-loss during shampooing. However, his hairline continued to recede. The “M” at the top of the forehead became more prominent! After hair growth treatments at LaoFoYe, not only did his hair loss stop, new hair started to emerge! He also sleeps better because of the acupunctural-point massage he receives during treatment at LaoFoYe. His hair texture improved dramatically especially at the back of his head and front hairline is progressing.

ONLY at LaoFoYe HairCare Centre

You can see it happening. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LFYhair (talk • contribs) 06:25, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Aha! A hair treatment commercial! Infuriating anecdotal "proof" of effectiveness. "Ancient secrets", indeed!Lynxx2 (talk) 15:55, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Wrong hair growth areas
I don't have hair growth at all in a large triangle cover the most of the back of my hand, and on the top of my feet (except the top of my toes). Reality is wrong ... or the article is wrong. There are simply no follicles in these areas, the skin is perfectly smooth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.191.152.98 (talk) 16:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

disputing the place with the densest hair
"On the scalp, the hair is usually known to be lost around the hair line, leaving the densest amount of hair at the crown." if this is true why is this one of the first places to show hair loss? you would think the top or the back would have the highest density of hair follicles? Magicalbendini (talk) 13:40, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

citing hair thickness varying by colour
Citation 9 currently links to a health and wellness blog to assert that different hair colours correlate with the number of hairs on a human head: https://mevolife.com/blog/health/wellness/healthy-hair

the blog itself cites Harvard's BioNumbers Database here: https://bionumbers.hms.harvard.edu/bionumber.aspx?id=101509&ver=6&trm=blonde+150000&org= which is a citation of Amazing numbers in biology, Rainer Flindt, Springer 2006, pp. 212 table 4.2.2, whose primary source(s) are listed as: See references-Bertelsmann 1979, Meyer 1964, Rucker 1967-in German in the book mentioned above

would it not make sense to cite a more reliable source, if not assess the validity of the assertion in the first place? 2600:1702:5730:83D0:A111:D8E7:CDBA:F35F (talk) 06:32, 9 March 2024 (UTC)