Talk:Sebaceous gland

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. (Reviewed version).

Anatomy: Microanatomy Mid‑importance

	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.AnatomyWikipedia:WikiProject AnatomyTemplate:WikiProject AnatomyAnatomy articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been classified as relating to microanatomy.

Animal anatomy Low‑importance

	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 AnimalsAnimal anatomyWikipedia:WikiProject Animal anatomyTemplate:WikiProject Animal anatomyAnimal anatomy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

1

Reversion

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).

Kind regards, --LT910001 (talk) 22:15, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA nomination

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)

Questions:

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.

Cheers, --LT910001 (talk) 22:21, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're ready for GAN, Iztwoz. Would you like to nominate? --LT910001 (talk) 03:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sebaceous gland/GA1. 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)[reply]

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

Done Iztwoz (talk) 15:18, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Done Iztwoz (talk) 15:36, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Done Iztwoz (talk) 15:36, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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".)

Done The Deakin reference is to mitosis (probably). Iztwoz (talk) 16:11, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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?)

Done That is a clearer image. Iztwoz (talk) 16:16, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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?

Done Know no reason Iztwoz (talk) 16:23, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Function, Sebum

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

Done Iztwoz (talk) 16:41, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Done Iztwoz (talk) 16:41, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Done Iztwoz (talk) 16:41, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Done well spotted. Iztwoz (talk) 16:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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?

I believe you addressed all of this?--S Philbrick (Talk) 14:54, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done Iztwoz (talk) 16:54, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

This was a suggestion to look into, but not IMO a requirement for GA.--S Philbrick (Talk) 15:14, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done

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

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.[15]"

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 79.45.122.180 (talk) 13:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

What is secreted?

Is sebum a type of holocrine or vise versa, or what?64.53.191.77 (talk) 21:19, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:39, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The lead section

Sebaceous glands are microscopic exocrine glands in the skin that secrete an oily or waxy matter, called sebum, to lubricate and waterproof the skin and hair of mammals.

It sounds a bit weird because human skin is still waterproof in the absence of sebum. --Envisaging tier (talk) 13:04, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, so I edited. You can further edit to improve clarity. Thanks for the alert. --Zefr (talk) 16:47, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --Envisaging tier (talk) 17:03, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: The Microbiology of College Life

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 January 2023 and 12 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lmk258 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Yp337 (talk) 20:14, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]