Talk:Seminal vesicles

1830:, I've posted my explanation of why I am okay with this article lead as stands above. I apologize for the "flat-out lied" comment - my intent was to point out that you were overstating the "mandatory-ness" of the lead-length guideline. I appreciate that you and others may take it more seriously - and that is your right as a reviewer, but it does not mean that all reviewers are required to. If you wish for it to be made a stronger requirement, I encourage you to propose such through the GA project as a whole, or through the MOS talk page. On the subject of the "going in depth below in the next few hours", I created the review page while I was on call for work, which meant I could've been pulled away for any amount of time on virtually no notice - which actually happens frequently. I had a vast majority of my comments saved prior to completing the review, but I needed some time to format them in a way that would be valuable to the review. I didn't end up getting called away for anything, and when I went back through my own notes on the article, I realized that there was not a single or combination of prose issues that cause the article to not be in line with the GA criteria. I'll note that the GA criteria is the following: 1792:, but if after I do so you can't identify any reason for a failure or an onhold status, I will re-pass the article after providing my nitpicks. I'll note that you haven't actually articulated any hard failure notes about the article other than a misinterpretation of the lead section guideline of the MOS (which, by the way, I know the lead is not the "prescribed" number of paragraphs, but I feel it is appropriate for this article) - so I encourage you to tell me what exactly you find a problem with this article so I can improve the review. I am typing this out before going to bed - I'll revisit and nitpick tomorrow since you think it's necessary, but if I don't see any reason to fail it after providing my nitpicks, it's going to pass again. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( 1784:

at all, I'm happy to do so in the future and apologize for the confusion. Secondly, the "a few minor things" is quite literally that - the GA criteria specify an article must be "clear, concise, and understandable" and use proper grammar - I identified no issues with those items that would preclude good article status. There are a few instances where I think the article could be further improved, but after my first GA review I was advised privately that a GA is "no big deal" and that I shouldn't be so nitpicky - thus I chose to pass this article which is quite well written and offer the nitpicks I had privately if the author so desired. I'll note that you flat out lie about

1721:, thank you for bearing with this review, and I'll personally apologize to you for reopening this - I should've gone ahead and opened it before starting to form my review offline, and then posted my suggestions even if I passed it upon first review - which I still think would have been acceptable. The timeframe certainly could have given the air that I was "quick passing" with no real review, and for that I apologize for dragging you through this debacle. Thank you for bearing with me, and congratulations on what I feel is actually a quite comprehensive while not overwhelming article about an anatomical feature of humans (and other organisms). Regards -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( 77: 53: 1809:, if it suggests you don't go to four paragraphs until the article has over 30,000 prose characters, and the article in question has slightly over 10,000, in the lowest (one to two paragraph) range, then it's more than an ignorable suggestion and should not be so lightly dismissed. To say that I "flat-out lied" is inappropriate—you will find most GA reviewers who take the time to learn the criteria take LEADLENGTH far more seriously than you do—and I won't be engaging any further. I did misinterpret your comment at the beginning of your review, 167: 1645: 1613: 1581: 1530: 1493: 1458: 1426: 1389: 1357: 1329: 1289: 1215: 674: 22: 137: 1834:- 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 ( 1874: 731: 1768:, 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. 547: 221: 1172: 1138: 1088: 1070: 1053: 944: 926: 909: 876: 797: 1106: 1018: 1000: 981: 962: 848: 814: 1853:

review, and thus I may have over-corrected on this review. I will approach future reviews with the mindset that there is always things that can be improved, and will attempt to offer my musings on first review even if I end up passing the article. I further, to eliminate any confusion about timeframes, will create a review page

1100:“They serve a similar function in mammals, which is to secrete a fluid that forms part of semen and is ejaculated during the sexual response.” - this sentence could be clarified a tad - I can see what you are trying to say but it may be unclear to others I guess. Perhaps expanding on this sentence may help. 1813:, 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. 1788:- which specifically states it's a suggestion, not a policy/guideline, and that you don't actually identify any issues with the lead as it is other than some arbitrary (and incorrect) interpretation of that guideline. I'll be happy to offer my full nitpicks of the article tomorrow if it suits your desires 1783:

Well, to start, I evaluated this article offline before even opening the final review - intending only to open it if I felt it was close to passing in the first place. That is why the final review was completed so quickly - if it's recommended to start the review page when I first look at the article

1116:

I think it'd be clearer to the non-biology reader to say something along the lines of "The function is similar in all organisms the glands are present in - to secrete fluid which forms a part of semen ejaculated during the sexual response". Right now it seems quite technical - and it took me a couple

680:

I see a few minor things, but nothing that precludes passing of the article as it stands right now. If you would like further comment on grammar/clarity/etc issues from my nitpicky point of view, please feel free to ping me either here, the talk page of the article, my talk page, or in an email and I

1243:

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

711:

Apologies for the delay here and for any of these suggestions which are nitpicky. I'm going to place the nomination on hold for now and allow Tom to respond to my points below before I pass this article again.. but I personally do not think any of these things themselves would preclude GA status at

1852:

choose to fail this article for, but I personally would still pass the article as is. I will wait for Tom's response to my musings before I pass it again. Apologies to all involved for the limited first review - as I said I was advised in private that I may have been too nitpicky with my first GA

1246:

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

351:

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.

1877:

Woah, this came out of the blue. I think you are doing a fine job Berchanhimez and one consistent with the spirit of GA as well as the text of the criteria. I see that you were going to provide feedback and I understood that you thought that would improve the article but not affect promotion. Am

279:

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 ?

696:

I will post a full nitpicking review later on, and if I identify anything that would actually cause it not to pass, I'll clearly identify such. Otherwise, I will repass the article with nitpicks here and an explanation of why my nitpicks shouldn't preclude GA status. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez

467: 1247:

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

1236:

I am going to be going through and will post a full list of prose nitpicks here before re-passing the article.. but after evaluating with a clear head this morning, I have a mind to pass it even though the "lead section is too many paragraphs". I am going to quote

969:

I write in the order of the article as is standard for anatomy articles, and see no convincing reason to make this change. I can make the purely cosmetic edit of rolling this into a paragraph to satisfy the commentator below, but also see no particular reason for

1857:

to reviewing the article in depth over a few days - instead of formulating my review offline and then simply posting it shortly after creating the review page. I was not sure whether this was the proper process but I will do it in the future. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez

1654:

good article status. If Tom would like to take this to FA, or otherwise wants feedback on grammar/clarity/etc, I'm happy to provide my nitpicks, but there is nothing which precludes listing as a good article at this time in my opinion. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez

858:

I meant make them agree - either say "columnar" and "cuboidal" or say "column-shaped" and "cube-shaped" - I recommend the first, but I do not have a strong preference either way. Again, not a reason to fail for this one issue. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez

637:, 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 ( 751:

Sorry, it is the first sentence of the lead - It says "the seminal vesicles" which I'm not sure needs the "the" - and it seems weirder with it. This was a poor way to express that, so I apologize. I still recommend just starting with

1716:

As the other user hasn't returned here, and quite frankly (and at the risk of being abrasive) I don't agree with their criticism in the first place, I'm going to be repassing this and taking the necessary steps to do so shortly.

770:

Unsure about this one. People refer to the vesicles to refer to both the internal corpuscles and the two larger structures. I'll leave it as is and see what discussions might take place regarding this distinction in the future.

1082:“May also be infected with” - and recommend combining with the next sentence as follows: “hydatid disease, for which standard treatments for those diseases are used” or something else - it’s a tad awkward as it stands now. 1701:

I have responded to your concerns. I'm happy to wait until you're ready in case BlueMoonset has further commentary to provide on your reviewing style (which I think is just fine). Thanks again for taking up the review.

1165:

The time of Galen is used a couple times, but a year/general timeframe is never defined - it may be beneficial to clarify the time of Galen with some other more-well-known timeframe at least on the first use.

1244:

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.

988:

when writing these sections, I try to write in short sentences in a particular way so that they are easy to understand. I know this is a bit awkward but I think the section is quite easy to understand at

366:

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.

322:

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

552: 1205: 585: 1362:

A spot check of approximately 15 inline references shows that they all contain the information they are cited to, and I trust Tom at this point :) -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (

575: 1571: 1012:“In the male, under the influence of testosterone…” could be changed to something such as “Testosterone production in males causes the… to proliferate…” 1752:, 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 1394:

The only three things Earwig finds are probably the most obvious "reverse copyvios" I've seen... and I doubt Tom would plagiarize, so... -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (

333:

from SUNY Stony Brook cited on this page explains that the alkalinity of seminal vesicle fluid complements/balances the acidity of prostatic fluid. The

1913: 1323: 1209: 1201: 178: 127: 117: 1933: 1918: 1193: 1117:

reads to understand it. I'm not going to fail it for this one remaining issue, but I do recommend this sentence be changed from its current to

337:

page explicitly describes the alkalinity as serving the function of changing the pH of the vagina. Evolutionary speculation is secondary here.

145: 557: 1923: 1318:, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or 425:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a

192: 1908: 652: 624: 93: 1319: 1498:

I'm not sure what viewpoints people could have on the seminal vesicles... kidding - I find no issues of neutrality. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (

1669:

Based on the below, I'm going to re-evaluate this tomorrow, to ensure I'm not rushing it. Apologies for the delay. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (

1928: 1197: 580: 393:

how long seminal vesicles can store seminal fluid? And where does that fluid go if we don't ejaculate for some days or months?

329:

The speculation about "developmental rest" and "spermicidal plug" is unreferenced. I have flagged it and moved it, because the

184: 821:

I have wikilinked in a fashion standard for anatomy articles. Red links don't look good but that's not a reason to hide them.

389:

how long seminal vesicles can store seminal fluid? And where does that fluid go if we don't ejaculate for some days or months?

1351: 313: