Talk:Pancreas/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Ajpolino (talk · contribs) 00:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to get through this within a week or so. I'm sorry to see you had such a long wait in the GAN queue. I know this won't be front-of-mind any longer, so if you need more time to respond to comments, just let me know. We're in no rush here. Looking forward to the read! Ajpolino (talk) 00:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ajpolino, well met. Thanks for taking up the review. I look forward to your comments and am happy to respond or make changes to any issues you address. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:40, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, finished my first pass through the article. In general, it looks great and was a pleasure to read. I've left some small comments below. Let me know if anything is unclear or objectionable. Also I think it's safe to say your proposed merge of Uncinate process of pancreas here is uncontroversial, so feel free to do that whenver is convenient. Let me know if you need anything! Thanks for the read! Ajpolino (talk) 04:26, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ajpolino. Sorry I am a bit caught up. Could you put this on hold for a week or two? I will try to respond to your concerns, complete the merge, complete referencing (I note I forgot to include reference for one or two sentences), improve the diabetes section by focusing on the primary topic of the pancreas (rather than diabetes), and also expand the lead somewhat by the end of the hold. Sorry for the delay.--Tom (LT) (talk) 09:35, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tom (LT): Of course, no rush. I'll mark this as on-hold for now. Let me know if you need anything. I hope all is well. Ajpolino (talk) 23:02, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for waiting, Ajpolino, I appreciate it. I've given the whole article a thorough once-over, updated a number of citations, updated and clarified a few sections (particularly the secretion of insulin / glucagon and diabetes), tried to replace citations from more than 10 years ago to keep the currency of the article up-to-date. I'm ready for your reassessment, --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:47, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tom (LT): Looks great! Just a quick confirmation: in Structure>Microanatomy the article reads The intercalated ducts drain into larger interlobular ducts within the lobule, and finally intralobular ducts. I don't have access to the source, but intuitively one would expect the opposite (that is, that the intralobular ducts are within the lobule). Just wanted to check with you whether it's a typo, or if it's correct as written. Other than that, the article looks to meet the GA criteria. I'll mark it as pass. Thanks for the interesting read! Ajpolino (talk) 03:34, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, corrected. Hope it's interesting, and thank you for your review! --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:13, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

a (prose, spelling, and grammar):

b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

Structure>Variation - An accessory pancreatic duct may exist if the main duct of the pancreas does not regress. this is somewhat confusing as written because above you told us the accessory pancreatic duct is part of the normal pancreas structure, where here it sounds like you're saying the accessory duct will only exist if the main duct "does not regress". Could you clarify this sentence?
- Done reworded, hopefully more clear now. --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:56, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Development - The cells of the pancreas differentiate through two main pathways. It's hard to tell from how it's written if you mean pathway 1 = follistatin & FGFs; pathway 2 = Notch activation, OR if pathway 1 = progenitors to exocrine cells going through three successive stages, while pathway 2 = multipotent progenitors differentiating into whatever they want. Could you clarify? I think it's just the way the "two pathways" thing is introduced that makes it unclear.
- Done reworded, hopefully more clear now. --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:56, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Function - Maybe change "from outside of the body" to "in the digestive tract" or "in the intestine" or just leave it at "involved in digesting substances"? The outside the body part makes it sound like you're barfing pancreatic juices onto various substances of culinary interest...

Done-just lending a helping hand but this is fixed. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:58, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Function>Blood glucose regulation - The pulled-out listicle thing at the end of this subsection is kind of confusing. I gather those are the two sides of the autonomic nervous system? But it's totally unclear what alpha-2 and M3 are. Perhaps this would be clearer as a paragraph with some extra words?
- Done agree; have relisted. Using more up to date sources I did make a correction to the uncited original text. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:47, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Function>Digestion - my personal opinion is that the bulleted list of digestive enzymes would be clearer in paragraph form. But that's just an opinion; it's clear enough as is. Think about it, and if you prefer it as is, I won't complain.
- Not done in this case I think it's easier to process using a list of bullet points. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:47, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Function>Digestion - Are Enterochromaffin cell in the pancreas? The article doesn't mention the word "pancreas". If they are, maybe you could just tweak that sentence to say something like "The pancreas has additional exocrine functions beyond glucose regulation such as..." just to give some sense of what enterochromaffin cells are.
- Done good point! These cells are found in multiple locations. But here I refer to the pancreas. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:47, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

a (reference section):

b (citations to reliable sources):

c (OR):

d (copyvio and plagiarism):

Could you fill out a bit more info for the reference currently at #8 (this)? It's just a title, URL, and accessdate now, but it looks like it has an author and website as well.

Done-just lending a helping hand but this is fixed. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:58, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's a citation needed tag in the Clinical significance>Diabetes mellitus section. Could you add a reference or clarify that the reference for the next sentence covers both?
- Done --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:47, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Clear of copyright/plagiarism as best I can tell. Checked a couple of refs. Earwigs is clear.
- Also clear of Gray's Anatomy 1918 I hope - so have removed that tag in references. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:47, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

3. It is broad in its coverage.

a (major aspects):

b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):

b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

It's heartwarming to see that so many organizations are willing to license images under compatible licenses.

Overall:

Pass/Fail: