![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
![]() | Seminal vesicles 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: October 6, 2020. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
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.
This articles states that the "Prostatic secretion is acidic", but on the articles for prostate is says "The function of the prostate is to store and secrete a slightly alkaline (pH 7.29) fluid". The bulbourethral gland is producing acidic secretion, does the confusion come from there ? -- Tsaitgaist ( talk) 20:23, 2 June 2009 (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.
The phrase first ejaculate fractions is confusing. Could someone clarify whether "first" refers to: the first spurts of an ejaculation? or the first ejaculation in a series? This phrase also occurs verbatim on the prostate page.
The speculation about "developmental rest" and "spermicidal plug" is unreferenced. I have flagged it and moved it, because the WP:Reliable source from SUNY Stony Brook cited on this page explains that the alkalinity of seminal vesicle fluid complements/balances the acidity of prostatic fluid. The prostate page explicitly describes the alkalinity as serving the function of changing the pH of the vagina. Evolutionary speculation is secondary here. Martindo ( talk) 22:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Both the the prostatic fluid and the fluid from the seminal vesicles is alkaline. These both function to reduce the acidity of the vaginal mucous. As for a source I recommend any base level biology text, however if someone can find a non tertiary source and reference it that would be appreciated. Silver ( talk) 00:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
The secretions of the prostate are acidic; those of the seminal vesicle are indeed alkaline. It does not seem a very well defined topic; even Guyton and Hall has it mixed up. Sourced. Msfishi ( talk) 13:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
how long seminal vesicles can store seminal fluid? And where does that fluid go if we don't ejaculate for some days or months? Ravisingh4106 ( talk) 21:24, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 13:04, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Seminal vesicle →
Seminal vesicles – It is more usual to refer to the seminal vesicles as a group rather than individually. See eg the
Google
n-gram
[1]. It is also the
MeSH heading for the word. I acknowledge that the plural form is not the preferred name by
Terminologia Anatomica nor
FMA but I think here
WP:COMMONNAME should trump the technically correct name seeing as they are so similar.
Tom (LT) (
talk)
07:29, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Berchanhimez ( talk · contribs) 22:47, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello Tom, I hope you won't mind me reviewing this article :) I'll preface this by saying I've read through it and I think it's likely going to pass quickly, but I will go in depth below at some point in the next few hours. Regards, -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 22:47, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply... The length of the lead should conform to readers' expectations of a short, but useful and complete, summary of the topic. A lead that is too short leaves the reader unsatisfied; a lead that is too long is intimidating, difficult to read, and may cause the reader to lose interest halfway. The following suggestions about lead length may be useful.Is the lead of this article "short, but useful and complete"? Yes, it is. Is the lead "too long... intimidating, difficult to read"? No, it's not. Would the reader lose interest halfway through the lead? I don't believe so at all. I'll note that this could be condensed to 1-2 paragraphs simply by moving sentences around - but the ordering and logical progression of the lead would be lost in such a case. Thus, because the MOS is only a guideline, and the "number of paragraphs" is only a suggestion that "may be useful", I conclude that the lead of this article complies with MOS:LEADLENGTH and the other MOS guidelines on the lead section and layout. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 13:14, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Berchanhimez, I was very surprised to see that this article was passed in 40 minutes, and more so when I looked at the article and immediately saw that it violated
MOS:LEAD, one of the
GA criteria: four paragraphs for such a short article is simply not allowed. (Please see
MOS:LEADLENGTH.) Then I read I see a few minor things, but nothing that precludes passing of the article as it stands right now.
, and realized that you truly don't understand the criteria. If you see "minor things", you point them out and get them fixed, and only then, when all the criteria are fully met, do you approve it. Please reopen this nomination and complete the review to the actual criteria; if you need help on the fine points, I'm sure someone will be happy to help you.
BlueMoonset (
talk)
00:00, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
I will go in depth below at some point in the next few hours., as indicating that you thought it would take a significant period of time to go through the article carefully, which is why the 40 minutes surprised me. It is common practice for reviewers to look over articles before they open a review to see whether they feel it's something they wish to spend time on. BlueMoonset ( talk) 01:14, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct- my nitpicks were all minor issues that do not detract from the clarity, conciseness, and understandability, nor did I identify any spelling or grammar issues. Again, I'll re-evaluate this with a clear head today to ensure I'm not missing things, and then post all of my nitpicks, even ones I wouldn't fail the article for, before deciding whether to pass it again. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 13:14, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
![]() | Seminal vesicles 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: October 6, 2020. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
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.
This articles states that the "Prostatic secretion is acidic", but on the articles for prostate is says "The function of the prostate is to store and secrete a slightly alkaline (pH 7.29) fluid". The bulbourethral gland is producing acidic secretion, does the confusion come from there ? -- Tsaitgaist ( talk) 20:23, 2 June 2009 (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.
The phrase first ejaculate fractions is confusing. Could someone clarify whether "first" refers to: the first spurts of an ejaculation? or the first ejaculation in a series? This phrase also occurs verbatim on the prostate page.
The speculation about "developmental rest" and "spermicidal plug" is unreferenced. I have flagged it and moved it, because the WP:Reliable source from SUNY Stony Brook cited on this page explains that the alkalinity of seminal vesicle fluid complements/balances the acidity of prostatic fluid. The prostate page explicitly describes the alkalinity as serving the function of changing the pH of the vagina. Evolutionary speculation is secondary here. Martindo ( talk) 22:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Both the the prostatic fluid and the fluid from the seminal vesicles is alkaline. These both function to reduce the acidity of the vaginal mucous. As for a source I recommend any base level biology text, however if someone can find a non tertiary source and reference it that would be appreciated. Silver ( talk) 00:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
The secretions of the prostate are acidic; those of the seminal vesicle are indeed alkaline. It does not seem a very well defined topic; even Guyton and Hall has it mixed up. Sourced. Msfishi ( talk) 13:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
how long seminal vesicles can store seminal fluid? And where does that fluid go if we don't ejaculate for some days or months? Ravisingh4106 ( talk) 21:24, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 13:04, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Seminal vesicle →
Seminal vesicles – It is more usual to refer to the seminal vesicles as a group rather than individually. See eg the
Google
n-gram
[1]. It is also the
MeSH heading for the word. I acknowledge that the plural form is not the preferred name by
Terminologia Anatomica nor
FMA but I think here
WP:COMMONNAME should trump the technically correct name seeing as they are so similar.
Tom (LT) (
talk)
07:29, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Berchanhimez ( talk · contribs) 22:47, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello Tom, I hope you won't mind me reviewing this article :) I'll preface this by saying I've read through it and I think it's likely going to pass quickly, but I will go in depth below at some point in the next few hours. Regards, -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 22:47, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply... The length of the lead should conform to readers' expectations of a short, but useful and complete, summary of the topic. A lead that is too short leaves the reader unsatisfied; a lead that is too long is intimidating, difficult to read, and may cause the reader to lose interest halfway. The following suggestions about lead length may be useful.Is the lead of this article "short, but useful and complete"? Yes, it is. Is the lead "too long... intimidating, difficult to read"? No, it's not. Would the reader lose interest halfway through the lead? I don't believe so at all. I'll note that this could be condensed to 1-2 paragraphs simply by moving sentences around - but the ordering and logical progression of the lead would be lost in such a case. Thus, because the MOS is only a guideline, and the "number of paragraphs" is only a suggestion that "may be useful", I conclude that the lead of this article complies with MOS:LEADLENGTH and the other MOS guidelines on the lead section and layout. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 13:14, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Berchanhimez, I was very surprised to see that this article was passed in 40 minutes, and more so when I looked at the article and immediately saw that it violated
MOS:LEAD, one of the
GA criteria: four paragraphs for such a short article is simply not allowed. (Please see
MOS:LEADLENGTH.) Then I read I see a few minor things, but nothing that precludes passing of the article as it stands right now.
, and realized that you truly don't understand the criteria. If you see "minor things", you point them out and get them fixed, and only then, when all the criteria are fully met, do you approve it. Please reopen this nomination and complete the review to the actual criteria; if you need help on the fine points, I'm sure someone will be happy to help you.
BlueMoonset (
talk)
00:00, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
I will go in depth below at some point in the next few hours., as indicating that you thought it would take a significant period of time to go through the article carefully, which is why the 40 minutes surprised me. It is common practice for reviewers to look over articles before they open a review to see whether they feel it's something they wish to spend time on. BlueMoonset ( talk) 01:14, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct- my nitpicks were all minor issues that do not detract from the clarity, conciseness, and understandability, nor did I identify any spelling or grammar issues. Again, I'll re-evaluate this with a clear head today to ensure I'm not missing things, and then post all of my nitpicks, even ones I wouldn't fail the article for, before deciding whether to pass it again. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 13:14, 7 October 2020 (UTC)