![]() | Pancreas 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: March 23, 2020. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The contents of the Exocrine component of pancreas page were merged into Pancreas on 28 February 2014. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
|
Why ever does this article refer to "Type One diabetes" (a widely used term), but then go on to refer to "secondary diabetes" (which is not a widely used term at all)? Surely the term which should have been used here was the more commonly used term of "Type Two diabetes"? ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 22:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Hear, hear! John Mark Wagnon ( talk) 01:26, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is no reason for this article to be separate; the short size and nature of the Pancreas article bears witness to this; this article would be of better quality and more utility to readers if it was provided with the context that the pancreas article bestows LT910001 ( talk) 02:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
There is no way the pancreas is "5.75–9.5 cm long"! The German Wikipedia says 16-20 cm and I think this is more realistic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.202.184.53 ( talk) 12:47, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Most of this article relates simply to the pancreas. Better to have it located in the parent article than separately - making life easier for readers and more likely that the article will be maintained. Tom (LT) ( talk) 23:50, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Ajpolino ( talk · contribs) 00:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
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)
@
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)
1. It is reasonably well written.
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?
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.
2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
3. It is broad in its coverage.
4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
5. It is stable.
6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
Overall:
I downloaded the ebook, same edition (19th), the reference points to pages pp. 2437–8, but those pages are about lipoproteins and the liver.
So if I try to fix this reference, the pancreas is mentioned in "Part 14: Disorders of the gastrointestinal System", "Section 3: Disorders of the Pancreas", those are pages 2086−2102.
I don't think I'm wrong in this, so I will fix the reference, but if I am, feel free to let me know and explain. Thanks :) — Arthurfragoso ( talk) 01:15, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
![]() | Pancreas 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: March 23, 2020. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The contents of the Exocrine component of pancreas page were merged into Pancreas on 28 February 2014. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
|
Why ever does this article refer to "Type One diabetes" (a widely used term), but then go on to refer to "secondary diabetes" (which is not a widely used term at all)? Surely the term which should have been used here was the more commonly used term of "Type Two diabetes"? ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 22:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Hear, hear! John Mark Wagnon ( talk) 01:26, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is no reason for this article to be separate; the short size and nature of the Pancreas article bears witness to this; this article would be of better quality and more utility to readers if it was provided with the context that the pancreas article bestows LT910001 ( talk) 02:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
There is no way the pancreas is "5.75–9.5 cm long"! The German Wikipedia says 16-20 cm and I think this is more realistic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.202.184.53 ( talk) 12:47, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Most of this article relates simply to the pancreas. Better to have it located in the parent article than separately - making life easier for readers and more likely that the article will be maintained. Tom (LT) ( talk) 23:50, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Ajpolino ( talk · contribs) 00:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
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)
@
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)
1. It is reasonably well written.
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?
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.
2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
3. It is broad in its coverage.
4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
5. It is stable.
6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
Overall:
I downloaded the ebook, same edition (19th), the reference points to pages pp. 2437–8, but those pages are about lipoproteins and the liver.
So if I try to fix this reference, the pancreas is mentioned in "Part 14: Disorders of the gastrointestinal System", "Section 3: Disorders of the Pancreas", those are pages 2086−2102.
I don't think I'm wrong in this, so I will fix the reference, but if I am, feel free to let me know and explain. Thanks :) — Arthurfragoso ( talk) 01:15, 9 June 2022 (UTC)