Talk:Femoral gland

Femoral 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: November 17, 2023. (Reviewed version).

Amphibians and Reptiles Mid‑importance

	Femoral gland is part of WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles, an effort to make Wikipedia a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource for amphibians and reptiles. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Amphibians and ReptilesWikipedia:WikiProject Amphibians and ReptilesTemplate:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptilesamphibian and reptile articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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.

GA Review

Passed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:06, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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 review is transcluded from Talk:Femoral gland/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 20:24, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

This is a properly structured article and I have only a few small suggestions to make.

"also" in lead: remove.

Done. Esculenta (talk) 19:40, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"a unique characteristic": very few things are "unique"; isomerism is not especially rare in organic chemistry. I think the phrase adds nothing here; the next sentence explains what the isomerism means, so you could consider shortening both and joining them, like "... chemicals have double bond isomerism, meaning that ..."

Actually you've said there is isomerism but the rest of the paragraph doesn't quite pick up on it. I guess you mean "species A uses the left-handed isomer and species B uses the right-handed one", i.e. evolution has exploited the alternative isomers to reduce mating between species? If that is the message, better say so right away. You get close to it in the final sentence but the reader has been floundering for most of the paragraph before that happens.

I've rewritten this paragraph and think it now addresses your points. Esculenta (talk) 19:40, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but "primary smelling part" just sounds like the dog's nose to me, or a primary school teacher talking down to a bemused year 6 class. "olfactory region" would work just fine. I suggest you introduce the word "olfactory [system]" somewhere near the top of the article.

Agree upon rereading; replaced per your suggestions and mentioned olfaction in the lead. Esculenta (talk) 19:40, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"ventral thigh": "ventral surface of the thigh", unless your frogs have 4 thighs, 2 ventral and 2 dorsal.

Fixed. Esculenta (talk) 19:40, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why have you suddenly introduced "anuran" in Reproductive significance? Simpler would be "frog", which is all that's needed here. If you really want to use the Latinate term, provide "frog" as a gloss, both in lead and in article body.

Trimmed unneeded jargon as suggested. Esculenta (talk) 19:40, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest you change "known as phoracantholide J" to "the macrolide phoracantholide J".

Done. Esculenta (talk) 19:40, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All images appear to be correctly licensed on Commons.

Article is well sourced. Spot-checks are all ok.

I look forward to seeing this as a GA very soon. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:05, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for having a look! Esculenta (talk) 19:40, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great stuff. If you have a moment to review one of mine ... of course I'd be pleased. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:06, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above 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.