Talk:Seminal vesicles/GA1

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

Reviewer: Berchanhimez (talk · contribs) 22:47, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello Tom, I hope you won't mind me reviewing this article :) I'll preface this by saying I've read through it and I think it's likely going to pass quickly, but I will go in depth below at some point in the next few hours. Regards, -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:47, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * I will post a full nitpicking review later on, and if I identify anything that would actually cause it not to pass, I'll clearly identify such. Otherwise, I will repass the article with nitpicks here and an explanation of why my nitpicks shouldn't preclude GA status. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 13:14, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the delay here and for any of these suggestions which are nitpicky. I'm going to place the nomination on hold for now and allow Tom to respond to my points below before I pass this article again.. but I personally do not think any of these things themselves would preclude GA status at this time. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 16:11, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Either use an article (the) for all names, or none.
 * apologies, I had a look and am unsure which parts you refer to here. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:37, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it is the first sentence of the lead - It says "the seminal vesicles" which I'm not sure needs the "the" - and it seems weirder with it. This was a poor way to express that, so I apologize. I still recommend just starting with Seminal vesicles (also called...) are... instead. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:17, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Unsure about this one. People refer to the vesicles to refer to both the internal corpuscles and the two larger structures. I'll leave it as is and see what discussions might take place regarding this distinction in the future. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:46, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * First sentence of second paragraph - the first "and" is unnecessary
 * Consider limiting the redlinks to further down in the body instead of the lead.
 * ❌ I have wikilinked in a fashion standard for anatomy articles. Red links don't look good but that's not a reason to hide them.
 * But the appearance! Those articles must be created at once! That jokingly said, not a reason to fail. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:17, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Column-shaped and cuboidal don’t agree - recommend either columnar or cube-shaped
 * ❌ as stated there are interspersed cells that are both columnar and cuboidal
 * I meant make them agree - either say "columnar" and "cuboidal" or say "column-shaped" and "cube-shaped" - I recommend the first, but I do not have a strong preference either way. Again, not a reason to fail for this one issue. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:17, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ good point --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:46, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * “And most often is due to” is awkward, recommend “and is most often caused by”
 * “Symptoms that can be associated include” recommend change to “Seminal vesiculitis is associated with symptoms such as”
 * ✅ your phrase sounds much easier to read!
 * Blood technically can’t be in sperm - think the better phrase would be “blood in the semen”
 * ✅ how embarrassing. Have had to fix a number of instances of this.
 * Possibly move the history sentences to the end of the first lead paragraph
 * ❌ I write in the order of the article as is standard for anatomy articles, and see no convincing reason to make this change. I can make the purely cosmetic edit of rolling this into a paragraph to satisfy the commentator below, but also see no particular reason for this.
 * The first sentence of the development section is a tad awkward - recommend rewording
 * ❌ when writing these sections, I try to write in short sentences in a particular way so that they are easy to understand. I know this is a bit awkward but I think the section is quite easy to understand at present.
 * The following sentence could be simplified as: “Between the fourth and seventh weeks of development, the cloaca…”
 * ❌ for the reason above
 * “In the male, under the influence of testosterone…” could be changed to something such as “Testosterone production in males causes the… to proliferate…”
 * ❌ for the reason above, and because I feel this is a stylistic difference unrelated to the GA nomination.
 * I am okay with the last four not dones. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:17, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * “It is usually treated by administration of antibiotics.” > “It is usually treated with antibiotics.”
 * The next sentence could be changed to “In cases where there is patient discomfort or where antibiotics have failed…”
 * “May also be affected by the infections…” -> “May also be infected with” - and recommend combining with the next sentence as follows: “hydatid disease, for which standard treatments for those diseases are used” or something else - it’s a tad awkward as it stands now.
 * ✅ thanks your phrasing is much better
 * “They serve a similar function in mammals, which is to secrete a fluid that forms part of semen and is ejaculated during the sexual response.” - this sentence could be clarified a tad - I can see what you are trying to say but it may be unclear to others I guess. Perhaps expanding on this sentence may help.
 * ❌ could you please clarify what your concern here is
 * I think it'd be clearer to the non-biology reader to say something along the lines of "The function is similar in all organisms the glands are present in - to secrete fluid which forms a part of semen ejaculated during the sexual response". Right now it seems quite technical - and it took me a couple reads to understand it. I'm not going to fail it for this one remaining issue, but I do recommend this sentence be changed from its current to something. My apologies I can't be more helpful beyond my suggestion. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:17, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ also a good point --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:46, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The time of Galen is used a couple times, but a year/general timeframe is never defined - it may be beneficial to clarify the time of Galen with some other more-well-known timeframe at least on the first use.
 * ✅ great point, the reader probably has no orientation to this. Have fixed it up
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * I am going to be going through and will post a full list of prose nitpicks here before re-passing the article.. but after evaluating with a clear head this morning, I have a mind to pass it even though the "lead section is too many paragraphs". I am going to quote MOS:LEADLENGTH: It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply... The length of the lead should conform to readers' expectations of a short, but useful and complete, summary of the topic. A lead that is too short leaves the reader unsatisfied; a lead that is too long is intimidating, difficult to read, and may cause the reader to lose interest halfway. The following suggestions about lead length may be useful. Is the lead of this article "short, but useful and complete"? Yes, it is. Is the lead "too long... intimidating, difficult to read"? No, it's not. Would the reader lose interest halfway through the lead? I don't believe so at all. I'll note that this could be condensed to 1-2 paragraphs simply by moving sentences around - but the ordering and logical progression of the lead would be lost in such a case. Thus, because the MOS is only a guideline, and the "number of paragraphs" is only a suggestion that "may be useful", I conclude that the lead of this article complies with MOS:LEADLENGTH and the other MOS guidelines on the lead section and layout. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 13:14, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * List of references is present, and CS1 is used to present them in accordance with established styles -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:00, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * No problematic sources identified. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:00, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * A spot check of approximately 15 inline references shows that they all contain the information they are cited to, and I trust Tom at this point :) -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:00, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * The only three things Earwig finds are probably the most obvious "reverse copyvios" I've seen... and I doubt Tom would plagiarize, so... -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:00, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * I am left with no questions that would be in scope after reading the article. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:00, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * Clear and concise. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:00, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * I'm not sure what viewpoints people could have on the seminal vesicles... kidding - I find no issues of neutrality. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:00, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * No issues here. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:00, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * Good mix of PD (old) images, those with licensing information, etc. - no issues found. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:00, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * No issues here. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:00, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * I see no issues precluding immediate failure, nor any that require fixing before good article status. If Tom would like to take this to FA, or otherwise wants feedback on grammar/clarity/etc, I'm happy to provide my nitpicks, but there is nothing which precludes listing as a good article at this time in my opinion. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:28, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Based on the below, I'm going to re-evaluate this tomorrow, to ensure I'm not rushing it. Apologies for the delay. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:41, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * On hold pending Tom's comment and to allow BlueMoonset time to offer any other comments they may have. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 16:11, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * @ I have responded to your concerns. I'm happy to wait until you're ready in case BlueMoonset has further commentary to provide on your reviewing style (which I think is just fine). Thanks again for taking up the review. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:37, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * As the other user hasn't returned here, and quite frankly (and at the risk of being abrasive) I don't agree with their criticism in the first place, I'm going to be repassing this and taking the necessary steps to do so shortly. Tom, thank you for bearing with this review, and I'll personally apologize to you for reopening this - I should've gone ahead and opened it before starting to form my review offline, and then posted my suggestions even if I passed it upon first review - which I still think would have been acceptable. The timeframe certainly could have given the air that I was "quick passing" with no real review, and for that I apologize for dragging you through this debacle. Thank you for bearing with me, and congratulations on what I feel is actually a quite comprehensive while not overwhelming article about an anatomical feature of humans (and other organisms). Regards -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:17, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Pass or Fail:
 * I see no issues precluding immediate failure, nor any that require fixing before good article status. If Tom would like to take this to FA, or otherwise wants feedback on grammar/clarity/etc, I'm happy to provide my nitpicks, but there is nothing which precludes listing as a good article at this time in my opinion. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:28, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Based on the below, I'm going to re-evaluate this tomorrow, to ensure I'm not rushing it. Apologies for the delay. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:41, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * On hold pending Tom's comment and to allow BlueMoonset time to offer any other comments they may have. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 16:11, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * @ I have responded to your concerns. I'm happy to wait until you're ready in case BlueMoonset has further commentary to provide on your reviewing style (which I think is just fine). Thanks again for taking up the review. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:37, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * As the other user hasn't returned here, and quite frankly (and at the risk of being abrasive) I don't agree with their criticism in the first place, I'm going to be repassing this and taking the necessary steps to do so shortly. Tom, thank you for bearing with this review, and I'll personally apologize to you for reopening this - I should've gone ahead and opened it before starting to form my review offline, and then posted my suggestions even if I passed it upon first review - which I still think would have been acceptable. The timeframe certainly could have given the air that I was "quick passing" with no real review, and for that I apologize for dragging you through this debacle. Thank you for bearing with me, and congratulations on what I feel is actually a quite comprehensive while not overwhelming article about an anatomical feature of humans (and other organisms). Regards -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:17, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Review query
Berchanhimez, I was very surprised to see that this article was passed in 40 minutes, and more so when I looked at the article and immediately saw that it violated MOS:LEAD, one of the GA criteria: four paragraphs for such a short article is simply not allowed. (Please see MOS:LEADLENGTH.) Then I read I see a few minor things, but nothing that precludes passing of the article as it stands right now., and realized that you truly don't understand the criteria. If you see "minor things", you point them out and get them fixed, and only then, when all the criteria are fully met, do you approve it. Please reopen this nomination and complete the review to the actual criteria; if you need help on the fine points, I'm sure someone will be happy to help you. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:00, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, to start, I evaluated this article offline before even opening the final review - intending only to open it if I felt it was close to passing in the first place. That is why the final review was completed so quickly - if it's recommended to start the review page when I first look at the article at all, I'm happy to do so in the future and apologize for the confusion. Secondly, the "a few minor things" is quite literally that - the GA criteria specify an article must be "clear, concise, and understandable" and use proper grammar - I identified no issues with those items that would preclude good article status. There are a few instances where I think the article could be further improved, but after my first GA review I was advised privately that a GA is "no big deal" and that I shouldn't be so nitpicky - thus I chose to pass this article which is quite well written and offer the nitpicks I had privately if the author so desired. I'll note that you flat out lie about MOS:LEADLENGTH - which specifically states it's a suggestion, not a policy/guideline, and that you don't actually identify any issues with the lead as it is other than some arbitrary (and incorrect) interpretation of that guideline. I'll be happy to offer my full nitpicks of the article tomorrow if it suits your desires User:BlueMoonset, but if after I do so you can't identify any reason for a failure or an onhold status, I will re-pass the article after providing my nitpicks. I'll note that you haven't actually articulated any hard failure notes about the article other than a misinterpretation of the lead section guideline of the MOS (which, by the way, I know the lead is not the "prescribed" number of paragraphs, but I feel it is appropriate for this article) - so I encourage you to tell me what exactly you find a problem with this article so I can improve the review. I am typing this out before going to bed - I'll revisit and nitpick tomorrow since you think it's necessary, but if I don't see any reason to fail it after providing my nitpicks, it's going to pass again. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:41, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Berchanhimez, if it suggests you don't go to four paragraphs until the article has over 30,000 prose characters, and the article in question has slightly over 10,000, in the lowest (one to two paragraph) range, then it's more than an ignorable suggestion and should not be so lightly dismissed. To say that I "flat-out lied" is inappropriate—you will find most GA reviewers who take the time to learn the criteria take LEADLENGTH far more seriously than you do—and I won't be engaging any further. I did misinterpret your comment at the beginning of your review, I will go in depth below at some point in the next few hours., as indicating that you thought it would take a significant period of time to go through the article carefully, which is why the 40 minutes surprised me. It is common practice for reviewers to look over articles before they open a review to see whether they feel it's something they wish to spend time on. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:14, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * User:BlueMoonset, I've posted my explanation of why I am okay with this article lead as stands above. I apologize for the "flat-out lied" comment - my intent was to point out that you were overstating the "mandatory-ness" of the lead-length guideline. I appreciate that you and others may take it more seriously - and that is your right as a reviewer, but it does not mean that all reviewers are required to. If you wish for it to be made a stronger requirement, I encourage you to propose such through the GA project as a whole, or through the MOS talk page. On the subject of the "going in depth below in the next few hours", I created the review page while I was on call for work, which meant I could've been pulled away for any amount of time on virtually no notice - which actually happens frequently. I had a vast majority of my comments saved prior to completing the review, but I needed some time to format them in a way that would be valuable to the review. I didn't end up getting called away for anything, and when I went back through my own notes on the article, I realized that there was not a single or combination of prose issues that cause the article to not be in line with the GA criteria. I'll note that the GA criteria is the following: the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct - my nitpicks were all minor issues that do not detract from the clarity, conciseness, and understandability, nor did I identify any spelling or grammar issues. Again, I'll re-evaluate this with a clear head today to ensure I'm not missing things, and then post all of my nitpicks, even ones I wouldn't fail the article for, before deciding whether to pass it again. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 13:14, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Further update, I've condensed my musings and limited them to things I think someone may choose to fail this article for, but I personally would still pass the article as is. I will wait for Tom's response to my musings before I pass it again. Apologies to all involved for the limited first review - as I said I was advised in private that I may have been too nitpicky with my first GA review, and thus I may have over-corrected on this review. I will approach future reviews with the mindset that there is always things that can be improved, and will attempt to offer my musings on first review even if I end up passing the article. I further, to eliminate any confusion about timeframes, will create a review page prior to reviewing the article in depth over a few days - instead of formulating my review offline and then simply posting it shortly after creating the review page. I was not sure whether this was the proper process but I will do it in the future. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 16:11, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Woah, this came out of the blue. I think you are doing a fine job Berchanhimez and one consistent with the spirit of GA as well as the text of the criteria. I see that you were going to provide feedback and I understood that you thought that would improve the article but not affect promotion. Am happy to address it here and appreciate you giving your time as a volunteer to review this.--Tom (LT) (talk) 21:45, 8 October 2020 (UTC)