|Sebaceous gland has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: September 1, 2014. ( ).
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|The content of Oil gland was merged into Sebaceous gland on April 1st 2014. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see ; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.|
Have reverted the last edit:
- Sorry for the shock
- Am trying to place important disorders in subsections, so that it can localise future editing (ie editing in the next 4-5 years)
- Edit removes details about the role of hormones and androgenns
- Edit also implies propionibacterium acnes may occur but does not directly state that this is implicated in the development of acne (which is, in my understanding, a matter of more consensus that the mite hypothesis).
This article is very close to GA standards. A short list we need to get finished:
- Done Finish citing statements
- Partly done Complete a brief 'history' section (who named/first noted the gland, who noted its relevance in acne, etymology)
- Done Should we remove the reference to the mite in the acne section and/or other primary research if present?
And... I think that's it. Anything missing?
- Ping to Iztwoz, who's also been working on the article.
- I think we're ready for GAN, Iztwoz. Would you like to nominate? --LT910001 (talk) 03:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Iztwoz, I haven't yet got around to filling out the 'history' and 'other animals' sections, but I will try to this weekend. I welcome comments from other users about how this article could be improved. --LT910001 (talk) 22:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- Done I've fleshed these out a bit. The sources I have used are not optimal, but I'm having a lot of difficulty locating more recent sources. --LT910001 (talk) 00:06, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Sebaceous gland/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
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
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.
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.
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".)
(I see that there is an svg version of File:Skin.png, but it is not, IMO superior.)
In the sentence The glands deposit sebum on the hairs why the bold? I understand it when first used in lead, but why here?
The makeup lists three items, adding to 79%. Why not add "free fatty acids (16%)" which would get closer to 100%?
The breakdown is for humans. Given that the breakdown is so different for other species (mentioned) should the qualification be added?
Single sentence paragraphs are frowned upon by some; I notice two in this section and three more in the "Unique sebaceous glands" section.
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.
Clinical significance. Acne
Three issue with A better treatment is claimed for SMT D002
- The name may be proprietary, which I believe we eschew if possible
- The linked article suggests it may be premature to even be discussing this
- 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?
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)
- 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
Serious error to fix: estrogens DON'T increase sebum production !!!
"Some hormones, including androgens such as testosterone and estrogen, as well as progesterone, increase the rate of sebum secretion."
This is completely wrong, Testosterone and Progesterone ARE actually known to stimulate sebaceous production, but estrogen is NOT ! In addition, in the source you cited (Davidson's principles etc.) at p.1267 and 1268 there's no mention of Estradiol or Estrogen as a cause for acne, instead the EXACT OPPOSITE IS TOLD ! Please fix it ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 13:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- You are indeed correct! Thanks for the heads-up, I've corrected that statement with an appropriate citation. – Reticulated Spline (t • c) 12:17, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
What is secreted?
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Sebaceous gland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110301151916/http://www.sebamed.com/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf/Studien/Saeuremantelkonzept/1.05.pdf to http://www.sebamed.com/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf/Studien/Saeuremantelkonzept/1.05.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
You may set the
|checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting
|needhelp= to your help request.
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
If you are unable to use these tools, you may set
|needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.