Talk:Sebaceous gland/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Sphilbrick (talk · contribs) 18:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Lead
There are several related medical conditions, including acne, sebaceous cysts, hyperplasia and sebaceous adenoma.

Seems to be missing something to explain the connection to sebaceous glands. Perhaps implied, but should be more explicit


 * ✅ Iztwoz (talk) 15:18, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Because the lead is intended to be a summary of the main article, it is accepted to leave the lead without references, and append the references to the relevant section of the main article. This lead has some facts referenced, and some not. The opening sentence has a ref, but one of the main points, the purpose of the glands to "lubricate and waterproof the skin and hair of mammals.'' is not in the body. I think it should be there, and reference there.


 * ✅ Iztwoz (talk) 15:36, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

The next sentence talks about location, and that is, properly repeated in the body, but the ref is in the lead; I think it should be in the body.


 * ✅ Iztwoz (talk) 15:36, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

The third sentence introduces the term "holocrine". That is mentioned in the body, but not referenced. (The Deakin reference at the end of the paragraph makes no mention of "holocrine".)


 * ✅ The Deakin reference is to mitosis (probably). Iztwoz (talk) 16:11, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Infobox
The first image is File:HairFollicle.png. Shouldn't this be replaced by File:Hair follicle-en.svg? (I do note the text on the svg is not as bold, is that an issue?)


 * ✅ That is a clearer image. Iztwoz (talk) 16:16, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

(I see that there is an svg version of File:Skin.png, but it is not, IMO superior.)


 * I agree also it's numbered and looks clumsy. Iztwoz (talk) 16:21, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Structure, Location
In the sentence The glands deposit sebum on the hairs why the bold? I understand it when first used in lead, but why here?


 * ✅ Know no reason Iztwoz (talk) 16:23, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Function, Sebum
The makeup lists three items, adding to 79%. Why not add "free fatty acids (16%)" which would get closer to 100%?


 * ✅ Iztwoz (talk) 16:41, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

The breakdown is for humans. Given that the breakdown is so different for other species (mentioned) should the qualification be added?


 * ✅ Iztwoz (talk) 16:41, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Single sentence paragraphs are frowned upon by some; I notice two in this section and three more in the "Unique sebaceous glands" section.


 * ✅ Iztwoz (talk) 16:41, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

In the Clinical significance, Other section, consider changing Other conditions that affect the sebaceous glands include to Other conditions that involve the sebaceous glands include''.


 * ✅ well spotted. Iztwoz (talk) 16:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Clinical significance. Acne
Three issue with A better treatment is claimed for SMT D002
 * 1) The name may be proprietary, which I believe we eschew if possible
 * 2) The linked article suggests it may be premature to even be discussing this
 * 3) The footnote is not well-formed, and is a dead link

Maybe the whole sentence should go?

Footnote 8. There is no online link, should this be added?
 * I believe you addressed all of this?-- S Philbrick (Talk)  14:54, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅ Iztwoz (talk) 16:54, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Additional Images
When I see a gallery in an article about an inherently photogenic subject, I'm not surprised. However, in a subject such as this, it comes across as if someone found some images relevant to the subject, but didn't see how to use them to support existing prose so just dropped them into a gallery.
 * This was a suggestion to look into, but not IMO a requirement for GA.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  15:14, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


 * This tends to be the norm for many anatomy articles - they are to be seen as extras...I think. Iztwoz (talk) 16:57, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Other comments
Should there be references to Gland of Zeis or Tyson's gland?


 * Apologies I've only just looked at this page - hadn't received any alerts etc. So I shall start to address the issues raised as soon as. Iztwoz (talk) 06:52, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * This was a suggestion to look into, but not IMO a requirement for GA.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  15:14, 1 September 2014 (UTC)



GA Criteria

 * 1a The article is well written. Several prose suggestions were made and all implemented
 * 1b The article conforms with the MOS guidelines with regard to layout and style.
 * 2a&b The article is well referenced and has inline citations for all contentious statements.
 * 2c There is no original research as far as I can see.
 * 3a&b The coverage is broad enough and the article does not include irrelevant material.
 * 4 The article is neutral.
 * 5 The article has been edited by the nominator and other users but there has been no edit warring.
 * 6 The images are in the public domain or have suitable licenses.
 * 7 The images are relevant to the topic and have suitable captions.
 * Overall assessment - Looks good