Talk:Mammalian kidney

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Lightburst (talk) 01:35, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Didactic model of the mammalian kidney

• ... that only the kidneys of mammals (model pictured) and birds can produce concentrated urine? Source: https://books.google.com/books?id=jcpjDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA250
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Basic Medicine
  • Comment: Translated from a Russian Wikipedia article by @D6194c-1cc: (welcome to English Wikipedia!) The article is extensive and well-cited.

Moved to mainspace by D6194c-1cc (talk). Nominated by BorgQueen (talk) at 21:54, 21 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Mammalian kidney; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• The hook is interesting and cited. The article is neutral and uses the correct inline citations. I do not find the image interesting but it appears to be free and extracted from another commons file. I do not find copyright violations. It is long enough and was moved to main on March 21 so it is new enough. Bruxton (talk) 14:50, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Thanks! I suppose the image isn't the best ever lol. I don't mind if it's not used. BorgQueen (talk) 14:57, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

About urine concentration

@Jmchutchinson: Since "kidney" word was removed from the statement in the [1] diff, the statement became too broad. Urinary bladder and cloaca can participate in urine concentration in some species. Amphibolurus maculosus (lizard) concentrates its urine using cloaca: [2]. D6194c-1cc (talk) 22:10, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I've rephrased it. BorgQueen (talk) 22:21, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Good catch! JMCHutchinson (talk) 22:22, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Although, phrase "where it is concentrated" (diff:[3]) can be understood as that urine had been already concentrated before tubules, that's why I've added "being" word previously, so that it cannot be understood ambiguously ("where it is being concentrated"). I'll return that word. D6194c-1cc (talk) 06:22, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Ah, now I see the ambiguity, but "is being concentrated" is not idiomatic here. I have rephrased as "which concentrate it". JMCHutchinson (talk) 07:11, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Maxim Masiutin (talk · contribs) 11:18, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

General considerations on style

The article conforms to the general rules and requirements stipulated at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles except where noted otherwise below. The article should be clearly written, in good prose, with correct spelling and grammar.

Lead section

The lead section should be shortened from 5 paragraphs to 4 according to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section. Quote: "its length should be commensurate with that of the article, but is normally no more than four paragraphs". However, given that the length should be commensurate, these 5 paragraphs can be rearranged to 4 without decreasing the lenghth.

Correct article structure

According to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles, there should be the following sections, with possible subsecitons.

• Structure (including a description of location and size, course, insertions and attachments. Possible subsections for blood supply, lymphatic drainage and nerve supply if these are complex enough. If covered on the same page, subsections may be devoted to individual substructures)
  • Variations (if appropriate) -- This section would have been useful
  • Development (discussing the embryological/foetal and early-life development of the structure. May be included as a subsection in "Structure", especially for minor anatomical structures) -- Should be a subsection of "Structure" unless there are other reasons not to do so, preferably explained at the talk page
  • Microanatomy or Histology (where appropriate) -- Such section should be added or explained at the talk page on why it is not appropriate
• Function or Physiology (as appropriate)
• Clinical significance (discussing related diseases, medical associations with the structure, and use in surgery) -- No such section
• Society and culture (which may be excluded in minor anatomical structures) -- No such section
• History (describing the structure and the etymology of the word. Etymology may be included as a separate subsection, if sufficient information exists) -- No such section
• Other animals (which may include comparative anatomy for discussing non-mammalian anatomy, i.e. which organs do have non-mammalian organisms doing the same function as mammalian kidney) -- No such section

Target audience

The target audience seems to be for a general reader and the text it looks good for my eyes.

On references

Each paragraph should ends with a citation, most (if not all) citations are reliable.

On substance

The article broadly covers the topic without unnecessary digressions.

On neutrality

The article is written from the neutral point of view.

On stability

The article is be stable, with no ongoing edit wars.

On image use policy

The article complies with image use policy.

Copyright

The article has no obvious copyright violations.

Conclusion

The article is partially compliant.

Recusal

After I concluded that the article is partially compliant and put the article on hold for about seven days to allow time for issues to be fixed, the nominee participating in as a reviewer in a GA review on the article that I nominated on Russian Wikipedia expressed opinion against my article to be awarded the GA status: ru:Википедия:Кандидаты_в_хорошие_статьи/16_ноября_2023#Против_(Обходной_путь_биосинтеза_андрогенов)

Therefore, I no longer able to continue reviewing this article on Mammalian kidney to avoid possible influence of personal bias on the quality of review. The new circusmances happened after I provided my opinion, and those circumstances suggest that I should declare a recourse to remove my from participation in this GA review to avoid a conflict of interest. I hereby pass it to different a reviewer on queue; since there is no separate procedure for this, I will do that via the established procedure of requesting second opinion.

Medicine and biology

This article is more on anatomy, which is a part of medicine, than biology. Even though anatomy is a field of study that can be considered a part of both medicine and biology and in medicine, the article is primarily focused on human anatomy for clinical purposes, while in biology, it encompasses a broader study of anatomy across different organisms and species. Still, there is no separate section for biology for GA nominations, there is a combined section for biology and medicine, and I considered that the rules for medicine should apply. However, these rules should not be imperatively followed, and a description could be given on the talk page on why a particular rule applies.

An article on the mammalian kidney can be considered both biology and medicine, as it encompasses aspects of both fields. From a biological perspective, the article would focus on the anatomy, physiology, and evolutionary aspects of the mammalian kidney. From medical prospective, it would cover topics such as kidney diseases, diagnostic methods, treatment options, and advancements in medical research related to the kidney. Understanding the mammalian kidney is crucial for medical professionals, as it forms the basis for diagnosing and treating various kidney disorders in humans. This aspect of the article would fall under the domain of medicine. In medicine, anatomy forms the foundation for understanding the structure and organization of the human body, but since humans are mammals, and animal studies are used to predict health outcomes in humans, understanding a human as a mammal, to know the differences and similarities of human with other mammals should be important for a medical professional.

Articles on whole biological species are more inclined towards pure biology than an article about a mammalian organ, which is more inclined to medicine.

Since biology and medicine are intertwined, that is why Wikipedia does not have a separate GA nomination for biology. The two words in the name of the section "Biology and medicine" are sorted that way not because biology is most important, they are just so alphabetically. And since you have submitted it to the section of biology and medicine, you have to assume that you may receive feedback on medical input.

Maxim Masiutin (talk) 20:45, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

The article is more related to veterinary medicine because of the diseases section. It's related to medicine just because human kidney is mammalian and the aricle mentions some diseases that humans can suffer from.
As for treatment and diagnosis, those topics are beyond anatomy and biology. You can open any disease article by appropriate wikilink to see how it can be diagnosed and treated. As for specific diagnostic methods for the organ function, the article can briefly describe the glomerular filtration rate measurement (GFR) methods, if they are different from those of other vertebrates. But I haven't found a reliable source that describes GFR in context of mammals, nor compares it with the procedure in other animals. I don't think that this information is necessary for good article nomination. Also, glomerular filtration rate could be described in detail in parent article ([4]), but I don't know whether it is in the scope of an anatomy and biology-related article. D6194c-1cc (talk) 20:26, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mammalian kidney/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: BeingObjective (talk · contribs) 17:55, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Attempting a review of this article BeingObjective (talk) 17:55, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

I find the prose style not to be engaging, unclear as to the target audience and inconsistent in word choice.

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

2. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

4. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

5. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

6. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

While this article satisfactorily fulfills numerous criteria outlined in the GA checklist, it remains an encyclopedic piece focused on 'the Mammalian Kidney.' It is imperative not to overlook the undeniable maturity of the subject. Upon scrutinizing the prose within the citations supporting this article, a notable issue with the quality of writing becomes apparent.

I recommend refining the prose to enhance engagement, ensuring consistency in technical language, and tailoring the content to a specific primary audience. A thoughtful reconsideration of language use and target audience is warranted before resubmitting the article for further evaluation. BeingObjective (talk) 18:37, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Can you, please, give some concrete examples of what is wrong with the prose in the article? You can quote some pieces of the article and explain what you think is wrong with terminology or simplicity of the text. D6194c-1cc (talk) 20:52, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Although, please, explain what do you mean when you say that the article is not focused on the mammalian kidney. D6194c-1cc (talk) 20:52, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

As for understandability, the topic is very complex and is not intended for general reader (with exception of the preamble), but still makes many things understandable, so it can be useful for a knowledgeable user (according to the Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable#Audience guideline). An "Introduction to..." article may be created, but whether it exists shouldn't affect the nomination of the current article. D6194c-1cc (talk) 20:52, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Review invalidated

This review is invalidated by the reviewer's request due to lack of time to compete the review:

• GA Review Discussion
• Reviewer's request to invalidate the reviews

--Maxim Masiutin (talk) 19:51, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mammalian kidney/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ajpolino (talk · contribs) 13:25, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I can take on this review. Sorry to see you've waited so long and had a discontinued review before. Will try to get through everything as quickly as possible. Ajpolino (talk) 13:25, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Comments on each of the good article criteria below:

1. Well-written

• Lead - a type of metanephric kidney. - Most readers won't understand this without context. Could you move this later in the lead (if you think it belongs in the lead) and give it a tiny bit of context?
• Lead - The kidneys in mammals are usually bean-shaped,[3] located behind the peritoneum (retroperitoneally)[4] on the back (dorsal) wall of the body. This should probably be two separate sentences, or at least separated with an "and".
• Lead - this part of the kidney is similar to the typical kidneys of less developed vertebrates. seems unnecessary as we, the readers, don't know what you're getting at here. Can probably just be cut.
• The lead is a bit long. Can you merge the first two paragraphs, both of which deal with the kidney's structure?

  Actually now looking at it again, the structure material seems divided among the first three paragraphs. I think the lead would be much clearer if you collect it all together and introduce the material in a way that gives the reader some context. For example, see Kidney#Gross_anatomy where the text takes us step-by-step from large structure to small, from outside to inside.

• Lead - unipapillary (single papilla), with several papillae or multipapillary as this point in the article some readers won't know what the papillae are. Perhaps you could briefly explain or (my recommendation) trim some of the detail from the lead.
• Lead - The simplest type of kidney in mammals is the unipapillary kidney with single lobe. can probably be cut; seems self-evident.
• Lead - varying between doesn't seem quite right. Maybe "variations in"?
• Lead - The human kidney is an example of the mammalian kidney. can be cut.
• Structure - on the posterior (dorsal) wall of the body "posterior" could be a bit confusing since for many animals we use "posterior" to mean "towards the anus" (like here). Perhaps "back (dorsal)" like you use in the lead is better?
• Structure - One of the key factors that determine the shape and morphology of the kidneys in mammals is their mass. you should either expand on this or remove it. Right now it's kind of meaningless. If you have a source that describes how mass impacts shape, I'm sure that would be interesting for readers.
• Structure - In the body, the kidney is surrounded by a mass of adipose tissue. maybe this belongs in the subsection below (general structure) instead of "location and shape"?
• Structure - kidney is represented by the cortex "is represented by" is a bit confusing. Is "called" an ok alternative?
• In general, consider reducing the amount of material that's repeated from the article kidney. This article should highlight what's distinct about the mammalian kidneys. In some places it does a great job of that. In places where the story of the mammalian kidney is the same as other animals' kidneys, you can reduce detail.
• Structure - The parenchyma, being a functional... is "the" more appropriate?
• Structure - Based on the location of the renal corpuscle, nephrons are classified into 3 types: superficial (closer to the renal capsule), midcortical (in the middle part of the cortex) and juxtamedullary (closer to the medulla) nephrons. According to the length of the loop of Henle, nephrons are classified into nephrons with a long loop and with a short loop of Henle are these classifications important? You don't mention them again. The latter, at least seems self-evident (unless there's some added context about how they differ that you'd like to provide!).
• Structure - The ratio of cortex to medulla varies between species, in domesticated animals the cortex usually occupies a third or fourth part of the parenchyma, while in desert animals with long loops of Henle it is only a fifth part perhaps this could go in the cortex subsection? Also do you have a source that would allow you to add a bit of context? One assumes desert animals have large medullae to give them greater urine-concentrating power?
• Structure - "The ratio of the outer and inner medulla" any idea what the significance of this is?
• Structure - while larger animals have multilobar kidneys, such as those of bovines,[70][8] but bovine kidneys are also externally lobulated (visually divided into lobes). the bovine side note distracts from the point of the sentence.
• Structure - Kidneys can be unipapillary,[8] as in rats and mice,[73] with few renal papillae, as in spider monkeys, or with many, as in pigs and humans.[8] Most animals have single renal papilla. if each lobe ends in a papilla (per Mammalian_kidney#General_structure) isn't this just restating what was in the prior paragraph?
• Structure - In manatees, which are also marine mammals, the kidneys I think it's obvious from the context.
• Structure - At the same time, killer whale kidneys are reniculate, and each reniculus is comparable to the kidney of mice unnecessary, just covered in the prior paragraph.
• Structure - from the interstitium that fills the space between the tubules and blood vessels you just described this two subsections above, so it should still be front of mind for the reader.
• Function - In mammals, nitrogenous metabolic products are excreted predominantly in the form of urea,[7] which is the end product of mammalian metabolism[115] and is highly soluble in water.[116] Urea is predominantly formed in the liver as a by-product of protein metabolism. is somewhat redundant. Can we merge these two and say "which is the end product of protein metabolism..."?
• Function - urine is being concentrated (or perhaps you meant "as the urine is being concentrated"?).
• Function - an elevated level is called alkalosis, and a lower level is called acidosis. can probably be cut. I don't think you use the terms again.
• Function - Perhaps we could have a bit more detail on mammals nearly unique ability to concentrate their urine? We get more coverage of acid-base regulation (which doesn't seem unique to mammalian kidneys?) than osmoregulation. I'm not sure if the Structure or Function section would be more appropriate. But it'd be great if a reader walks away with the sense that the preponderance of loops of Henle, prominent medullae, and salt gradient as you go "deeper" into a kidney all serve this unique purpose of urine concentration. I'm guessing(?) if you asked a physiologist what's unique about the mammalian kidney, that'd be their first answer? I could be totally off base though; you'd likely know better.
• Evolution - What does the subheading "Definitive mammalian kidney" mean?
• Evolution - from which multilobar kidneys. is "evolved" supposed to be at the end of the sentence?
• Evolution - A further adaptation mechanism is an increase in the size of the renal glomeruli in large mammals (and, accordingly, an increase in the length of the tubules), as in elephants, in which the diameter of the glomerulus can be 2 times larger than in killer whales. This doesn't seem quite right. Both animals are quite large. Our articles suggest killer whales are larger than elephants.
• Evolution - The appearance of reniculate kidneys ... size increases. seems like this should go in the next subsection.
• Evolution - Earlier the article notes that bears also have reniculate kidneys. Their lifestyle doesn't fit many of the hypotheses in this subsection. Are there any theories on why bear kidneys would be this way?
• Development - In mammals, the final kidney is the metanephric kidney, but kidney development
• Development - (processes of epithelialization and tubulogenesis occur) Perhaps this could be cut? I'm not sure it helps.
• Development - When the formation of new nephrons (nephrogenesis) ends, the number of nephrons in the kidney becomes final. this reads as a truism. Perhaps instead "Once the kidney is developed, the number..."?
• Injury and diseases - Gradually, but slowly, the number redundant.
• (I may add a few more as I go through the other criteria, but the above should be the bulk of them. I'll add new ones below to reduce confusion I hope).
• Lead - Is In mammals, the nephrons can be classified into the nephrons with a short loop and a long loop of Henle important enough to go in the lead?
• Structure#Parenchyma - According to the length of the loop of Henle, nephrons are classified into nephrons with a long loop and with a short loop of Henle the cited source gives some nice context with this, including that some mammals only have short loops, and correspondingly these mammals are less able to concentrate their urine. Could we include some of that in the article? I'm not sure the core fact that long loops into the medulla underlie urine concentration is coming through quite strongly enough.
• Structure#Structural differences... - In the first paragraph, I think the digressions to cover the particulars of the bovine kidney are more distracting than enlightening. The section will probably be most digestible to readers if you start with the principles (small animals have small unilobar kidneys; large animals have large multilobar kidneys) and once that is established add the structural exceptions (I'm guessing there are more than just the bovine one). Also I'd gently suggest you organize this subsection to flow from small animals to large animals (as the Dantzler textbook does). Currently it has a paragraph on lobes (et al), then papillae, then reniculate kidneys.

Work in progress! Will keep adding as I have time. Ajpolino (talk) 16:42, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Pardon the radio silence. Busy week in real life. I'm back to look at the other criteria:

2. Verifiable with no original research

• Spotchecking a few sources at random (with the help of RANDOM.org). Ref numbers refer to this version.
  • Dantzler 2016 textbook:
    • Ref 16 - A bit funny that the same fact is cited to a different source in the article body. Actually looking into it, the body source is probably more appropriate. It really covers the short vs. long loops in some detail, whereas the Dantzler textbook puts it in an image caption in passing. If you do keep this ref, can we have a page number please?
    • Ref 70 and 75 are good.
  • Looking at ref 21 meant I also had to look at 19, 20, 22, and 23. Every part of the sentence The kidneys of mammals... in regulation of glucose levels is supported by one of the cited sources. I'll admit this style of citations makes me slightly uncomfortable. It'd be better if you could find a source that says "the important things about kidneys are A, B, C, and D.[solid ref]" instead of piecing it together from the introductory sentences of papers on various topics. I think this style leaves us susceptible to WP:SYNTH problems where the article can end up implying something that the sources do not. That said, in this particular case the sentence is fairly uncontroversial, so it's not a huge deal. But maybe something to look out for in your future article crafting. And if you do have a superior source for this statement, that would be nice.
  • Are refs 37, 38, and 39 all necessary to support The potential for regeneration in mature kidneys is limited, because new nephrons cannot be formed? It seems like reference 37 supports all of that just fine.
  • Keogh, et al. 2021 (some ref #s have changed; now using this version:
    • Ref 4, 71 - Good.
    • Ref 80 - Can you point out where The size of the kidneys increases with the mass of mammals is supported in that section? It's almost certainly true, and I'm probably just missing it.
    • Ref 97 - Another small thing, (with exception of some species) doesn't seem to be supported by this review. I'm assuming it's supported by the reference for the sentence above (though I didn't checK)? Maybe you could swap them.
  • Ref 125 (Schulte, et al. 2014) - Good.
  • Zhou, et al. 2023
    • Differences in kidney structure are the result of adaptations during evolution to variations in body mass and habitats (in particular, habital aridity) between species is currently referenced to two places in the Zhou paper and this paper. I would think the second citation to the Zhou paper (which says "Here, we found significant correlations between renal structure and two traits (body mass and habitats) based on..." should suffice? I don't see any kidney discussion in the third paper, but I was skimming pretty quickly and could have missed it. In general, it would be better if you could find a secondary source as a reference here, but I think the claim here is pretty uncontroversial, so it's not a huge deal.
    • Ref 150 - Good.
  • Davidson, 2011
    • Ref 40, 41, 181, 182, 183, 189 - Good.
    • Ref 41 and 182 appear to be the same. I think the difference between a hyphen and a dash may be forcing them to appear separately?

3. Broad in its coverage - Good.

4. Neutral - Good.

5. Stable - Good.

6. Illustrated:

• The diagrams you've made are really fantastic, and I'm sure will be adopted by various language Wikipedias.
• In the article's caption to File:Didactic model of a mammal Kidney with numbered parts.png, what's the purpose of reference #45 to [5]?
• The article is well-illustrated; all images are available on Commons, properly licensed, and tagged appropriately.

• Ok, made it through. In general, I'd say the major outstanding issue with the article is criterion #1. Good articles should be "clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience." In several places, sentences are unclear, paragraphs flow poorly and I had to read them several times to comprehend, etc. I marked several things as I read, listed above. Consider the advice at Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable, which criterion #1 links to. I see you've made several edits since I first read the article, and I haven't had a chance to look them over yet. So it's possible you've already made great strides. Again, my apologies for moving so slowly. Feel free to reply interwoven among my comments, just indenting out your reply. If you'd rather continue quoting and commenting as below, that's just fine too. I'll take another look through to assess criterion #1 whenever you're ready. Take as much time as you'd like (or as little, if you're ready now). Just let me know. Thanks, Ajpolino (talk) 22:03, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Comments

Structure - In the body, the kidney is surrounded by a mass of adipose tissue. maybe this belongs in the subsection below (general structure) instead of "location and shape"?
— User:Ajpolino

Fat layer is more related to the location (the kidney is located inside a fat capsule), it's not a part of the kidney, so it is not suitable for general structure section. D6194c-1cc (talk) 06:15, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I've made some investigations. In humans, perirenal fat surrounds both the kidney and adrenal gland. The perirenal fat is separated from the retroperitoneal space by the renal fascia, which encloses both the kidney and adrenal gland ([6]). So perirenal fat is not part of the kidney. But Wikipedia article about the retroperitoneal space argues that the perirenal fat may be considered part of the kidney (being part of the renal capsule). And the source specified at that statement doesn't have such information. An original research? Such conclusions can confuse editors. D6194c-1cc (talk) 16:31, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Function - In mammals, nitrogenous metabolic products are excreted predominantly in the form of urea,[7] which is the end product of mammalian metabolism[115] and is highly soluble in water.[116] Urea is predominantly formed in the liver as a by-product of protein metabolism. is somewhat redundant. Can we merge these two and say "which is the end product of protein metabolism..."?
— User:Ajpolino

As the article describes mammalian kidney, it should describe comparative aspects of the kidney. For example birds excrete uric acid, which is end-product of protein and purine metabolism. And uric acid is least soluble in water, defining some properties of the urine and determining kidney function. Thus, soluability is a valuable fact. As for the liver, I've removed its mentioning. D6194c-1cc (talk) 07:03, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, that's exactly the change I was asking for (if unclearly). Ajpolino (talk) 23:14, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Lead - The simplest type of kidney in mammals is the unipapillary kidney with single lobe. can probably be cut; seems self-evident.
— User:Ajpolino

It should be mentioned. Most sources say that the simplest type of kidney is unipapillary, but unipapillary kidneys can also be multilobed. So it's not obvious for the readers what kidneys can be called the simplest (i.e. unilobar [7], [8]). D6194c-1cc (talk) 15:41, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

You're suggesting that some reader might assume a unipapillary multilobar kidney is "simpler" than a unipapillary unilobar kidney. I find that hard to believe. But this is not a hill I wish to die on. Ajpolino (talk) 23:17, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I've examined the sources for a few days. Crest kidneys are unipapillary too. But crest kidneys can have multiple renal pyramids. The sources usually say that unipapillary kidneys are the simplest (not mentioning that they are unilobar) so that we should do the same way. And only some sources say that the simplest are the unipapillary kidneys with single renal pyramid. Some reader may assume that crest kidneys are as simple as unilobar (although I saw sources that called crest kidneys unilobar [9], but they might be not reliable). But camel kidneys with renal crest are considered to be unipapillary and multilobar ([10]). So I've just changed single lobe to single pyramid as the source says: 1203158083.
Also, the simplest kidney is mentioned to prepare reader to evolutionary context, as more complex kidneys are belived to be modifications of unipapillary kidney. D6194c-1cc (talk) 18:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I've made this sentence transient between the structure and evolution parts of the paragraph: edits. D6194c-1cc (talk) 21:28, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Evolution - What does the subheading "Definitive mammalian kidney" mean?
— User:Ajpolino

It means permanent (final) adult kidney, which is mammalian type of metanephros. I've changed the title to "Mammalian metanephric kidney". D6194c-1cc (talk) 15:25, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Evolution - The appearance of reniculate kidneys ... size increases. seems like this should go in the next subsection.
— User:Ajpolino

I've moved the second sentence to the next section, but reniculate kidneys should be mentioned in the "Adaptations to body mass" section, since reniculate kidneys are a mechanism that allows increasing organ size when multilobar kidney has exhausted its capability to increase in size. D6194c-1cc (talk) 16:09, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Structure - Kidneys can be unipapillary,[8] as in rats and mice,[73] with few renal papillae, as in spider monkeys, or with many, as in pigs and humans.[8] Most animals have single renal papilla. if each lobe ends in a papilla (per Mammalian_kidney#General_structure) isn't this just restating what was in the prior paragraph?
— User:Ajpolino

Not, it isn't. Crest kidneys are considered to be unipapillary too, but they can have multiple lobes. So unipapillary is not the same as unilobar. I've added some explanations to the article: 1202951132. D6194c-1cc (talk) 22:20, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Structure - At the same time, killer whale kidneys are reniculate, and each reniculus is comparable to the kidney of mice unnecessary, just covered in the prior paragraph.
— User:Ajpolino

The prior paragraph covers structure but not the size and mass, so I added some details and clarifications and also corrected terminology, since unipapillary kidney might be not the same as unilobar: 1204302376. D6194c-1cc (talk) 21:47, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Lead - a type of metanephric kidney. - Most readers won't understand this without context. Could you move this later in the lead (if you think it belongs in the lead) and give it a tiny bit of context?
— User:Ajpolino

I've changed the main definition and added explanation. Indeed, mammalian kidney encompasses mammalian metanephric kidney and mammalian metanephros in context of terminology usage. When researchers talk about embryo kidney, they may refer to it as metanephros. And when they talk about adult kidney, they may refer to it as metanephric kidney. So the main definition should remark that mammalian kidney is metanephric, but do it in such a manner that it should not narrow the scope to neither metanephros nor adult metanephric kidney. Also, mesonephros is the kidney that functions some time in embyo of mammals, but it is never called mammalian kidney (it's just a transient organ that is not typical to mammals).
Also, probably mammalian embyo metanephros should be described in detail in separate article. D6194c-1cc (talk) 14:10, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Development - In mammals, the final kidney is the metanephric kidney, but kidney development
— User:Ajpolino

I've reworded some sentences in that section to make text more concise. Please, check it again: 1209342416. D6194c-1cc (talk) 12:50, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Second look

Hi D6194c-1cc, I've had a second look through and unfortunately I think the article is still a long way from meeting the first GA criterion. I'll give some examples below. In the meantime, I'm going to mark this review as "fail". It's always a challenge to copyedit your own writing, since you inherently understand what you mean (of course, even professional writers have separate editors). I'd recommend you try to enlist the help of another science-interested editor who can help check your writing and suggest clearer ways to communicate the key information you wish to convey to your audience. You may also consider posting at WP:GOCE for someone with experience copyediting. Folks at the WP:FA project, often recommend the tutorials at User:Tony1/How to improve your writing; linking it here in case you find it helpful. If you disagree with this outcome, I'm sure you're aware that you are welcome to re-nominate the article at GAN any time to get a fresh reviewer. If there's any other way I can be helpful, please let me know. Best, Ajpolino (talk) 03:47, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Examples of outstanding issues:

• Unnecessarily wordy or jargon-rich sentences. Consider simplifying to make the information clearer for the reader. Some examples from the first few sections:
  • The mammalian kidneys are a pair of excretory organs of the urinary system of mammals,[2] being functioning kidneys in postnatal-to-adult individuals[3] (i. e. metanephric kidneys). (You could add a sentence later in the lead explaining that mammals have two kidney precursors during development, but that the final/metanephric kidney becomes active near or after birth).
  • The structure of the kidney may differs between species.[12] The Kidneys...
  • The simplest type of kidney in mammals, from which the more structurally complex kidneys are believed to have evolved, is the...
  • (in particular, habital aridity)
  • The cortex itself is similar to the typicalkidneys of less developed vertebrates
  • The stripes differ in that the outer stripe contain proximal straight tubules, while the inner stripe...
  • Structurally, kidneys vary between mammals.[80] What structural type a particular species will have depends generally on the body mass of the animals. → "Kidney structure varies based largely on a mammal's size" (or something like that).
  • In some animals, such as horses, the tips of the renal pyramids fuse with each other to form a common single renal papilla, called the renal crest.[84] Such kidneys are called crest kidneys and are also considered unipapillary kidneys (a modification). (you don't use the term "crest kidney" again; I'm not sure we need to be introduced to it).
  • In manatees, which are also marine mammals, the kidneys are actually multilobar, since the cortex is continuous with a continuous cortex
  • The mammalian kidney is an the organ that has with the most complex vascular blood system compared to other organs.
• Confusing run-on sentences. Consider splitting. E.g.:
  • Each kidney consists of a renal capsule, peripheral cortex, internal medulla,[7] which can be split up into renal pyramids[8] forming papillae with their innermost parts,[9] calices, and renal pelvis, although the calices or renal pelvis may be absent in some species.
  • The kidneys can be unilobar (single lobe represented by a single renal pyramid)[13][14] or multilobar, unipapillary (single papilla), with several papillae or multipapillary,[14] may be smooth-surfaced or lobulated,[1][15] also the kidneys may be reniculate, which are found mainly in marine mammals.
  • There is a blood-filtering part of the nephron in the cortex — the renal corpuscle, from which the renal tubule extends to the medulla into the loop of Henle, then the tubule returns back to the cortex and with its distal end flows into its collecting duct that is common to several nephrons.
• Material is often presented with insufficient context, in a way that flows poorly and makes it challenging for a reader to understand. This is hard to describe, but clear writing uses context to guide a reader through jargon. A couple of examples:
  • Each kidney consists of a renal capsule, peripheral cortex, internal medulla,[7] which can be split up into renal pyramids[8] forming papillae with their innermost parts,[9] calices, and renal pelvis,... Generally, urine produced by the cortex and medulla drains from the papillae into the calices, and then into the renal pelvis, from which urine exits the kidney through the ureter in the lead is jargon-rich; a reader unfamiliar with the topic (and who might seek out an encyclopedia article on the topic) would just read a list of unfamiliar terms. Adding just a bit more context could give something like the below:
    • "The kidney is encased by the renal capsule, and made up of one to many lobes. In each lobe, blood is filtered in the cortex (outer layer). The filtrate moves into the medulla (inner layer), where it is concentrated by passing through the loop of Henle. Concentrated filtrate returns to the cortex and is deposited into a collecting duct. The material exits the medulla through the papilla, and is transmitted through the renal calyces, into the renal pelvis, and on into the ureter. The material is eventually excreted from the body as urine."
  • The cortical labyrinth contains interlobular arteries, vascular networks formed by afferent and efferent arterioles, renal corpuscles, proximal convoluted tubules, macula densa, distal convoluted tubules, connecting tubules and the initial parts of the collecting ducts.
  • Similarly, the article sometimes describes distinctions, but doesn't give us context for why they matter, e.g. The continuous layer of the cortex lying above the medullary rays is called the cortex corticis. or Based on the location of the renal corpuscle, nephrons are classified into 3 types: superficial (closer to the renal capsule), midcortical (in the middle part of the cortex) and juxtamedullary (closer to the medulla) nephrons.,

Comments on Second look

Sorry, I hadn't had access to my notebook till today. And I hadn't finished polishing the article before the February 22 when I went offline. You were too hasty finishing the review.
As for the review, consider iterative review process if you want to make the article ideal. When I had worked a programmer, I made many code reviews of merge requests. A good practice is iterative reviews for small fixes and reviewing again large pieces of a work if they were rewritten significantly (for example, in cases of architecture problems).
I'll continue to polish the article and comment your notes, but I'll have to slow down the process as I have some other things to do, and the review have been already marked as failed. D6194c-1cc (talk) 10:24, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

The mammalian kidneys are a pair of excretory organs of the urinary system of mammals,[2] being functioning kidneys in postnatal-to-adult individuals[3] (i. e. metanephric kidneys). (You could add a sentence later in the lead explaining that mammals have two kidney precursors during development, but that the final/metanephric kidney becomes active near or after birth).
— User:Ajpolino

Well, according to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, "the first sentence should introduce the topic, and tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where. It should be in plain English." So the first sentence answers to the "when" question. Although from the same giudeline: "if its subject is definable, then the first sentence should give a concise definition: where possible, one that puts the article in context for the nonspecialist." But the functioning kidney of marsupials after birth is the mesonephros ([11]). Probably, I should add this fact somewhere in the article, I'll think about where to put it. D6194c-1cc (talk) 12:34, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Also, you suggested many diffs, but I try not to use them as reproducing them in the article can be qualified as copying from another source with the need for appropriate attribution. I don't know wheither a reviewer can participate in the article, but reproducing diffs may be qualified as contribution to the article. I make a wikilink to the GAR in each borderline situation (when I cannot do things another way), but in each case I use argumentation rather then just reproduce suggested changes. D6194c-1cc (talk) 09:06, 2 March 2024 (UTC)