Talk:Adrenal gland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Anatomy (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article has been classified as relating to organs.
WikiProject Animal anatomy (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Animal anatomy, an attempt to organise a detailed guide to all topics related to animal anatomy apart from human anatomy. To participate, you can edit the attached article, or contribute further at WikiProject Animal anatomy. This project is an offshoot of WikiProject Animals
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pancreas location[edit]

See this graphic [1]. The pancreas juts into the spleen on one end, and the duodenum on the other. This first picture in this Adrenal gland article shows that the pancreas is between the two kidneys, which seems to be wrong.

Planned rewriting of the article[edit]

I'm planning to do a complete revision of this article. While I think it's considerably well written, it needs some cleanup and there are text that belongs under different sections. Also most of the Function section is about not the production of hormones by the gland but the effects of such hormones in the body. What I plan to do here:

  • Rewrite the lead section Yes check.svg Done
  • Expand Structure Yes check.svg Done
  • Add text about hormone synthesis by the gland in Function Yes check.svg Done
  • Reorder text to the correct sections Yes check.svg Done
  • Revise Clinical significance Yes check.svg Done
  • Cleanup and copyedit Doing...
  • Add images as needed Yes check.svg Done

I'm not deleting any text here, as I said it is quite well written. If someone is willing to give a hand or some advice it will be much appreciated ;). --Tilifa Ocaufa (talk) 11:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Update: I pretty much finished adding text to the Function section. I think it covers most of the necessary information now, and I don't want to keep going as that would make it unnecessarily long and complicated. It may need some tweaks and additional details though, and most certainly lots of revision. I have a draft for the lead ready and I'm thinking whether or not to expand Clinical significance (which I think I'll just tweak a little, but other editor's opinions are appreciated). --Tilifa Ocaufa (talk) 07:59, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
2nd update: I ended expanding most of the items in Clinical significance. I think this gives a more complete context and doesn't leave readers wanting for more that much. I've just uploaded the lead too. Its length somewhat concerned me, but according to WP:LEADLENGTH it's ok to have four paragraphs if the article is longer than 30K characters. I promise not to add more heavy amounts of text, but I plan to find sources for some statements and make some minor edits the following days. --Tilifa Ocaufa (talk) 08:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
@Tilifa Ocaufa did not see this at the time... the article looks fantastic. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:52, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I only see a few unreferenced sections, but that could be fixed quickly and then we can send it for WP:GAN! -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 21:49, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
CFCF makes a good point. I also prefer 16 to 15 because it has more factors and is a power of two (1, 2, 4, 8, ...). If that's the case, I better start adding some citations. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
@CFCF I may have accidentally reinserted an image you removed. Sorry about that, please go ahead. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:52, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
@CFCF, @Tilifa Ocaufa only a few sections need references. Am happy to nominate when you two are. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:17, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
No problem, the image just seems to have been duplicated. Anyway, I'm a little unsure with these very wide and short images. They're very hard to use, and I'm thinking of centering it. What do you think? -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 08:42, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
In my opinion, No harm in experimenting, although there may be a number of silent editors lurking in the background who vehemently object to this.--Tom (LT) (talk) 11:17, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
@LT910001, @CFCF: Just pinging to tell you I'm alive :P. Thanks for taking the time to expand the article! I think the image tells a lot about the organ but it looks weird in my display (the text is all cluttered in the right). Currently we have two Development sections, one under 'Structure' and the other under a header of its own. Would you consider merging these? --Tilifa Ocaufa (talk) 23:27, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Good to hear from you! Whoops -- that's a very diplomatic way of pointing that out, I must have selective blindness. Very happy if those sections are merged. --Tom (LT) (talk) 11:12, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

In other animals[edit]

For future editors, there is a whole book relevant: [2] "" --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:16, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


CFCF and Tilifa Ocaufa I think this article is ready and I've put this article up for GAN with us three as conominators considering the work we've all put in. I hope that is OK! --Tom (LT) (talk) 12:46, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Pre-GA workup[edit]

Prior to GA I'm going to make a few copyedits, which I hope are noncontroversial:

  • Removing as many acronyms as possible
  • Retitling "Epinephrine" to "Adrenaline" in view of the article's title ("Adrenal gland") and the predominant use of adrenaline throughout the article. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:23, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I worry that the 'function' section isn't very accessible to the lay reader, who is probably not a university graduate or student of biology, and will try to make it more readable in the coming days. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


Question... we have a lot on steroidogenesis, should we move most of it to the steroidogenesis article? --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:35, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, in fact the Steroid article (where steroidogenesis redirects to) could use some of the text in here. I think maybe we can move the whole cholesterol uptake paragraph. The rest of the section has some relevant concepts but can be more concise. Tilifa Ocaufa (talk) 02:54, 12 August 2015 (UTC)