|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Breast article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6|
|Breast has been listed as a level-4 vital article in Science. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as B-Class.|
|Wikipedia is not censored.
Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding objectionable content and options to not see an image.
|Discussion of images for this article can be found at Talk:Breast/sandbox. We want to have images that add quality to the article, and not have a collection of random images. Please do not add or remove images from this article without discussion with the other contributing editors of the article.|
|Breast received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
If you find some images offensive you can configure your browser to mask them.
Preparation for GA nomination
I will be preparing this article for GA nomination over the next month and would accept any feedback. I invite other users to contribute and/or take the lead on this. Ping to Flyer22, what are your opinions about what needs to be done to get this to a satisfactory standard? Tasks: --LT910001 (talk) 04:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- Add citations to unsourced areas
- The ping didn't work, LT910001; but since I have this article WP:Watchlisted, it wasn't needed anyway. I see that you listed that the unsourced areas need citations; of course, I agree. What I first see as needing improvement when looking at this article is the lead; it doesn't do a good job at summarizing the article. But fixing up the lead can come after we fix up the rest of the article. The sourcing needs improvement. For example, look at the first two sources currently in the Shape and support section; those need to be replaced. Flyer22 (talk) 05:04, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- Great. I tend to work in a time-scale that is a little slower than other users, so I will slowly add and replace citations over the next month. Am also looking to get Cervix to GA --LT910001 (talk) 05:07, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Btphelps, regarding this, this and this latest edit I made, and this and this latest edit you made, make sure that you are using WP:MEDRS-compliant sources. Generally try to stay away from WP:Primary sources. Also see WP:MEDDATE. Flyer22 (talk) 07:42, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Medgirl131 (talk · contribs), regarding expansions such as this... Per what I stated above to Btphelps (who thanked me via WP:Echo for that post), make sure that you are not using too many WP:Primary sources. Keep WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDDATE in mind. Also, take it easy on the excessive citing; see WP:Citation overkill. Flyer22 (talk) 09:12, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Edit request Jul 18 2015: Aspect with regard to both sexes
This whole article is heavily weighted toward females, giving almost no consideration to male breasts.
Even the opening sentence gives the reader the immediate impression that only females have breasts.
The breast is one of two mammary glands on the upper ventral region of a female primate's torso ...
Why is a breast being defined as a female only anatomy part?
Please clean up this article or allow it to be edited so that it can be factually correct.
- See WP:Due weight. The article (its WP:Lead) is clear that the male chest also consists of breasts. But the male chest is usually not referred to as breasts, and the vast majority of sources on breasts refer to female breasts...not to male breasts (as any "breasts" Google search will show). Flyer22 (talk) 03:47, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
- But even the sentence I pointed out is clearly misleading, and the opening of an article should act as a definition of sorts for defining what is being talked about. Breasts are not exclusive to women. The primary reason for my dismay is that I was recently involved in an online discussion with a number of people who refused to believe that male and female breasts are fundamentally the same thing, and I am having this wikipedia article shoved in my face as evidence to the contrary.
- Even if you look at the wikipedia page for mammary glands, currently it also opens with a sentence leading the reader to believe that it is something exclusive to females.
- I don't know how this is such a large misconception among the population, but it is, and I do not believe wikipedia should be re-inforcing misinformation, especially in a time when women are working to develop equal rights with men.
- "In humans, there is one pair of mammary glands, also known as mammae, or breasts. They are rudimentary in both sexes until the age of puberty when, in response to ovarian hormones, they begin to develop in the female" --The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 6th ed.
- The WP:Lead sentence is not the end of the subject. We often give the primary definition of a topic in the lead sentence and move to other definitions after that (in other sentences and/or paragraphs). The people directing you to this Wikipedia article obviously didn't comprehend the lead well. If people don't read past the lead sentence and notice the other definitions, that is a problem with their comprehension skills. I did, however, tweak a part of the lead after your initial comment above. I'll contact WP:Anatomy about weighing in on this matter, see if they feel we should go with a different WP:Lead sentence. Flyer22 (talk) 16:39, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
- Alerted. On a side note: I added ": Aspect with regard to both sexes" to the heading of this section so that it is clearer as to what this section is about and will be easier to identify once archived. Flyer22 (talk) 16:50, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
- I agree the phrasing is not ideal. I find this a little confusing because it seems to contradict itself. That said like with many organs of the body I think most readers will have an idea of what the breast is before they read the article:
The breast is one of two mammary glands on the upper ventral region of a female primate's torso that can produce and secrete milk and feed infants. Both males and females develop breasts from the same embryological tissues. At puberty, estrogens, in conjunction with growth hormone, causes breast development.
- I guess my question is this. Are we conflating the mammary glands (which I have always presumed to be the glandular structures that secrete milk) and the breasts (ie the two prominences we see on males and females in surface anatomy, but with a lay meaning that includes the mammary glands)? --Tom (LT) (talk) 02:19, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- Would something like this suffice?: "The breast is one of two prominence found on the upper ventral region of the torso of male and female primates. In females it serves as the mammary gland, which produces and secretes milk and feeds infants. Both males and females..." Open to changes/suggestions --Tom (LT) (talk) 02:19, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Splitting the content into a Breast development article
Is everyone okay with this splitting of content by Medgirl131 (talk · contribs)? And, Medgirl131, why did you feel that the content needed splitting? I'm asking both questions because I don't see the need for the split. Medgirl131, I know you prefer not to communicate on talk pages, but maybe you wouldn't mind explaining why you split the content? As others have noted to you before, communication and collaboration are vital on Wikipedia. Did you split the content because you intend to keep adding more and more on that topic? Did you feel there was a WP:SIZE issue? Flyer22 (talk) 04:36, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Note: Medgirl131 did get back to me about this via email, and I read the email late (like a month or so late), but didn't get back to Medgirl131 on that email (I meant to, though). I think I eventually will. Medgirl131 was clear that she prefers not to respond on talk pages. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:59, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Only human breasts
- To which article do you refer? There is already a link in the lead to mammary gland. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:00, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. I have read the Mammary gland article and it is a very good general breast article. I do think renaming "Mammary gland" to "Breast" would be sensible, and renaming the Breast page to "Breast (human anatomy)" would be sensible. The content of the Breast page is human-centric to a ridiculous degree. DouglasHeld (talk) 00:02, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- DouglasHeld, the term breast is usually used to refer to human females. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:56, 20 June 2016 (UTC)