Talk:Femoral gland
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
.svg){kind=small} | The good article status of this article is being reassessed to determine whether the article meets the good article criteria. Please add comments to the reassessment page. Date: 02:12, 24 April 2026 (UTC) |
 | 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). |
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
GA Review
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)
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)
- "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)
- 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)
- "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)
- 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)
- Suggest you change "known as phoracantholide J" to "the macrolide phoracantholide J".
- Done. Esculenta (talk) 19:40, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
- Thanks for having a look! Esculenta (talk) 19:40, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
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)
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.
GA Reassessment
Femoral gland
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result pending
Per this discussion, this article was found to have been, at least in part, LLM-generated. Wikipedia cannot in good conscience reward LLM-generated articles with GA status. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:12, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
- Retain Since no actual issues with the article were noted in the above nomination, seems like a procedural retain close is appropriate. SilverserenC 02:30, 24 April 2026 (UTC)
- Keep LLMs, assuming they are used responsibly and within the bounds set by policy, aren't by themselves a good reason do delist a GA. This is, of course, assuming that the nominator thoroughly checked everything. Gommeh (talk! sign!) 19:59, 20 May 2026 (UTC)