Talk:Vagina/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: SilkTork (talk · contribs) 08:13, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]


I'll start reading over the next few days and then begin to make comments. I am normally a slow reviewer - if that is likely to be a problem, please let me know as soon as possible. I tend to directly do copy-editing and minor improvements as I'm reading the article rather than list them here; if there is a lot of copy-editing to be done I may suggest getting a copy-editor (on the basis that a fresh set of eyes is helpful). Anything more significant than minor improvements I will raise here. I see the reviewer's role as collaborative and collegiate, so I welcome discussion regarding interpretation of the criteria. SilkTork (talk)

Thanks,
talk) 08:16, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
No rush - it'll take me a long while to get through the initial stage, so I wouldn't be looking for your input for a good few days yet. SilkTork (talk) 08:26, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • GA criteria have been met. Listing as a Good Article. SilkTork (talk) 10:10, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tick box

WP:WIAGA
for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
    B.
    lists
    :
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an
    appropriate reference section
    :
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B.
    Focused
    :
  4. Is it
    neutral
    ?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are
    copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content
    :
    B. Images are provided if possible and are
    suitable captions
    :

Comments on GA criteria

Pass
  • Other than the Sainte Phalle "give birth" sentence, queried below, the Society and culture section meets GA standards. SilkTork (talk) 11:22, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. I still have some hesitation regarding "incorrect use of the term vagina" in the Etymology and definition section; however, as that section does follow sources, I feel that is more my personal disquiet rather than a legitimate GA concern. The article does do a superb job of remaining neutral on a politically charged topic. SilkTork (talk) 11:01, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Original research. In my study of the article I have seen no evidence of original research. SilkTork (talk) 11:07, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose. The article is written to a high standard. I have some remaining qualms regarding the use of technical language in places; however, I am persuaded by explanation that the article is as clear as it could be regarding the nature of the topic. SilkTork (talk) 09:01, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Major aspects. Areas likely to be of interest to general readers are covered. Considering the complexity of the topic, it is impressive this has been done in the space. SilkTork (talk) 09:05, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Focus. I still have doubts about the amount of detail in the Microanatomy section compared to the rest of the article; however I am persuaded by explanation that the detail in the section is needed, and that a sub-article would not be appropriate. SilkTork (talk) 09:13, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Query

*There is a copyright concern tag on File:Bumm 158 lg.jpg as it needs an additional copyright tag indicating the copyright status in Germany. SilkTork (talk) 20:18, 8 May 2018 (UTC) All other files are fine, so 6A would be met once that is sorted out. SilkTork (talk) 20:46, 8 May 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Removed it. It's such a good image, though. Hopefully we can find a good replacement.
talk) 04:18, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

*Criteria 1A on copvio. The copvio tool has thrown up wording which remains close to the source. The source is womenshealth.gov.

Our wording: "An injection for pain control during childbirth is often administered through the vaginal wall and near the pudendal nerve. This nerve carries sensations from the lower part of the vagina and vulva. This is only used late in labor, before the baby's head emerges. With a pudendal nerve block, there is some relief from the pain and the laboring woman remains awake, alert, and able to push the baby out. The baby is not affected by this medicine, and its administration carries very few disadvantages."
The source: "A doctor injects numbing medicine into the vagina and the nearby pudendal nerve. This nerve carries sensation to the lower part of your vagina and vulva. This is only used late in labor, usually right before the baby's head comes out. With a pudendal block, you have some pain relief but remain awake, alert, and able to push the baby out. The baby is not affected by this medicine and it has very few disadvantages." SilkTork (talk) 21:18, 8 May 2018 (UTC) [reply]
That text was added by Barbara (WVS). I've changed it.
talk) 04:18, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Criteria 2B. The Tripp A cite (currently 225) is a dead link. I'm looking at it on the Wayback Machine, and not getting much from it, but I can see it is a theses, and looks unpublished. Academia.edu appears to be a questionable source:
    talk
    ) 04:18, 9 May 2018 (UTC)     [    reply]
    I don't have a problem with Journal of Mammalogy as a source on the coyote, and it feels more appropriate than the BookBaby source. It was the Andrew Tripp source on academia.edu (currently cite 228) regarding the Sainte Phalle sculpture. He was quoting Sainte Phalle, and he must have got that quote from somewhere as it seems unlikely he interviewed her himself as she died 13 years before he wrote his thesis. I'm ambivalent about the statement itself ("Sainte Phalle stated that the sculpture represented a fertility goddess who was able to receive visitors into her body and then "give birth" to them again.") as the previous sentence gives the essential information ("Museum patrons can go inside her body by entering a door-sized vaginal opening."). As a mild copyedit "The outer form is a giant, reclining sculpture of a woman with her legs spread. Museum patrons can go inside her body by entering a door-sized vaginal opening." could be run together as one sentence: "The outer form is a giant, reclining sculpture of a woman which visitors can enter through a door-sized vaginal opening between her spread legs." There is an image of the installation on Commons, but it's not a good one: File:Tinguely 'celebrates'Niki's de Sain Phalle birthdayat Stedelijk Museum Amsterdam.The Netherlands.jpg. SilkTork (talk) 08:53, 18 May 2018 (UTC) [reply]
    I think we are seeing different numbers when it comes to references, which is why I mistook which reference you were referring to before, although I should have paid better attention. For example, you call the Tripp source "currently cite 228." But, for me, it was currently 225. I didn't add the Tripp material, but I remember tweaking its reference. Anyway, I restored the Journal of Mammalogy source, and added your suggested copyedit. As for the Tripp source being dead, I looked at
    talk) 00:34, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Focus. The article moves through a range of aspects related to the topic; the aspects being mostly those that an average reader is likely to want, and apart from Microanatomy, no section is particularly large. At 53 kB (8510 words) this is reasonably large, but considering the importance and complexity of the topic that size is probably about right. I'm impressed that it has been kept under 55 kB; and I'm sure that would have taken some considerable thought and discussion! I feel that the bulk of the article is fine, but I have doubts about that Microanatomy section. It is highly technical, very dense, and that, combined with its length, suggests to me that people will have difficulty reading it, and most are likely to give up, so defeating the purpose of it being there.
    My feeling is that the section needs both trimming and simplifying. In my experience that can be difficult to do for the primary contributor, as it looks like it might need a different approach. I would suggest someone else look at it, and see if they can make it easier for the general reader to absorb and understand. As it is so technical, it would need someone familiar with the topic. SilkTork (talk) 10:55, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
SilkTork, with regard to simplifying, it was tackled and done when preparing this article for GA status. It's not me being close to the article that has me saying that there is nothing else that can be done to simplify the Microanatomy section, except for using different wording for "longitudinal" and "continuous" or briefly explaining what something like
talk) 09:49, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
I've pondered this a bit. I don't think that section is helpful to the general reader, but my feeling is that most readers will simply skip it. Will this harm the rest of the article? Who can say? Probably not. I think it is a general flaw in Wikipedia that some of our articles are too technical and inward looking for the general reader. There are no doubt several theories as to why that is, but it is not the place of this review to take a stance on that issue. Some of the criteria in GA are down to individual interpretation - my own inclination is to say that section is not clear enough and so should fail Criteria 1 (A); indeed, I feel there are still some words and phrases in the rest of the article that could be made clearer (but not to the same level as this section). However, I hear what you are saying, and I am aware that we do have other articles that use technical language. If you have already worked on making it clearer, and feel you cannot make it clearer than it is, I have to decide to pass or fail the article passed on the situation in front of me. As this is an interpretation of the criteria, and you have given a reasoned response, and the article is otherwise impressive, I think it would be inappropriate to hold up the GA just for that. So I am accepting this section, but will record that I still have qualms about it. SilkTork (talk) 08:57, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I wouldn't state that it's a failure of Wikipedia. I think it all comes down to microanatomy material (and similar technical material) mainly being something that only specialists and those familiar with the material will understand. For example, I doubt that a Microanatomy section will ever exist in the Simple English Wikipedia Vagina article...unless it's the bare basics.
talk) 03:05, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks for talking me through that. I'm OK with the sources.
MOS:JARGON indicates that wikilinking is not a substitute for using clear language, and the example of fibromuscular shows why. As an additional point, fibromuscular does not appear again in our article. Instead we have "The human vagina is an elastic muscular canal that extends from the vulva to the cervix", which is clear and understandable, and echoes what other sources say. SilkTork (talk
) 22:41, 8 May 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Yes, per the
talk) 04:29, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Some sources do use friction, others use stimulate. I assume that the later use of the word friction is to indicate rubbing, but I can't recall that word being used in that sense in sources I've trawled, as sexual rubbing is generally understood to be what occurs just outside the vagina. Stimulate would work fine, but is already in use in that sentence. You have this sentence later on: "this stimulates the penis and helps to cause a man to experience orgasm and ejaculation", and that seems OK. SilkTork (talk) 08:02, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
As the link shows, I had changed "this stimulates the penis" to "this creates friction for the penis." I did so because it seemed you were looking for consistency. Plus, "creates friction" isn't vague like "stimulates" is. I thought about changing it to "this stimulates and creates friction for the penis," but I found it redundant since the penis is obviously being stimulated in the process.
talk) 12:16, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
A synonym for imprecise would be "approximate", as in - "almost right, but not quite". A synonym for incorrect would be "wrong", as in "not right". Language is tricky as people sometimes feel that there are fixed and absolute rules for language which everyone should obey. But language is simply the means by which we communicate, and it is flexible. That legal and medical usages are different to everyday uses is very common. Each are appropriate when used in the appropriate
talk) 23:44, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
As that is what sources say, then you are right in sticking with it, and it's not going to impact the GA. However, as a thought going forward, the inclusion of that material with that language does put up a barrier for me, and I assume others as well, which then might create a barrier to a reader's willingness to absorb information from the rest of the article. The tone of it is not quite right. The assumption that people are thinking only of the technical vagina when referring to the genitals as vagina I find difficult to take. That seems to be a misunderstanding in itself. Have you heard Germaine Greer's thoughts on using the word cunt to refer to the genital area? There is a debate here. SilkTork (talk) 06:39, 18 May 2018 (UTC) It is mentioned in our Cunt article - which you have edited, so I assume you are familiar with her thoughts; however, for clarity, here is an edit quote used in the cite in that article: "... in the 1970s I thought this word [cunt] for the female genitalia shouldn't be abusive. I believed it should be an ordinary, everyday word ... it [vagina] refers to the internal canal only; all the bits that make it fun are left out. ... I refuse to think of my sex as simply a receptacle for a weapon.". SilkTork (talk) 09:02, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not stating that "people are thinking only of the technical vagina when referring to the genitals as vagina." That's the point -- it's common that people think of the vulva, or vagina and vulva, when stating "vagina," and thinking like that is incorrect because the vulva is not a vagina. The definitions section is for the definitions. A vulva is not a vagina by any valid definition. The article is about the vagina, although it mentions the vulva at times. We have a separate article for the vulva. If readers want to know about the vulva, they will go to the Vulva article. I highly doubt that they will write this article off because it notes in the definitions section that calling the vulva a vagina is technically wrong. Like
talk) 00:34, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Regarding "not as much thought," I added in "as has gone into the study of male genitals." I didn't see it as needed, but it is clearer. Regarding "a better understanding of female genitalia can help combat sexual and psychological harm," the "how" aspect is already addressed by the "a person's interpretation of its location might not match another's interpretation of the location" text. We could include rape or child sexual abuse as an example., but I don't see that it's needed. Maybe I'm thinking with an "it's common sense that we mean things like sexual abuse" mindset. Another harmful aspect is addressed in the "Perceptions, symbolism and vulgarity" section, which is a subsection of the "Society and culture" section. I don't think that the content should be merged since the latter content is specific to that latter section. I'd rather keep the "Etymology and definition" section restricted to terminological issues rather than have it go into cultural details that are better suited for the "Society and culture" section. As for a separate article to address the misuse, I'm not seeing that it's needed. Yes, I know that I keep saying "not needed" in this paragraph, LOL. And when looking for material on the misuse back then, I didn't come across enough material to expand it beyond what is stated in the article, meaning beyond repetitiveness. If it is notable enough for its own article, it's a
talk) 12:51, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
I'll look further into your comments. I'm not seeing anything here that is going to be a significant hindrance to GA status, but I do want to explore these issues to ensure we are covering areas that may later be bought up by people who wish to challenge the GA status. SilkTork (talk) 08:53, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

:::::Sorry to be slow to respond to the ping. Clearly, the common usage is sufficiently widespread to deserve mention, but how to characterize it? In general, I favor a descriptive approach in discussion of word usage on Wikipedia; as an encyclopedia striving for a neutral point of view, it's not our job to tell readers that they're right or wrong when they use a word in a certain way, and usually we don't. Modern-day dictionaries intended for a general readership are rarely prescriptive either, but I note that no major dictionary notes that vagina is used to mean more than one thing (as an anatomical word relating to humans, that is). I actually find that a little surprising, and I suspect this is likely to change in the next few years. (Wiktionary acknowledges reality, listing the popular usage as colloquial, which has no real bearing on what we do but is interesting nonetheless.) Unsurprisingly, specialist sources, such as the medical texts cited in the article, use the word in only one way.

I do think that a somewhat precriptivist approach may be warranted if either of two conditions are met: (1) if reliable sources are prescriptive or (2) if our failure to emphasize a problematic usage seems likely to contribute to people misunderstanding the topic. I don't have time today to look closely at the sources cited in the relevant paragraph, but if one or more of them says that the colloquial usage poses a problem, then I think we should note that, too. But is it incorrect or is it imprecise? What do the sources say? If they use the word incorrect (or something synonymous), I wouldn't take issue with our doing the same. Maybe taking it out of Wikipedia's voice—saying it's frequently termed incorrect (if that's true) instead of calling it "the incorrect use", especially in a sentence without a citation at the end—would be preferable. I think imprecise maybe doesn't hit quite the right note because it suggests vagueness or a lack of precision. People who use vagina to mean "vulva" are either being wrong or simply being colloqial, depending on your viewpoint, but they're not really being vague or imprecise per se. Then again, it seems likely enough that lots of people use vagina to collectively mean both vulva and vagina. That is vague in its own way, I guess, sort of like using the slang word package to refer to the male sex organs collectively. When they use it to mean specifically the vulva, that strikes me as roughly akin to people saying testicles (or more likely balls) to refer to the scrotum and the various bits, including testicles, housed within.

I don't know if any of this helps, but it's what occurs to me. I will say that the current wording doesn't bother me—not even the word incorrect. RivertorchFIREWATER 18:53, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologize, River. I don't like wording such as "frequently termed incorrect" because it tempts editors to add a
talk) 00:34, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
That strikes me as a potentially elegant solution. I'm curious to know what SilkTork thinks. RivertorchFIREWATER 07:05, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To me, it would still come across as weasel wordish. And I'd prefer to actually have a source that states "by sexology and medical sources" if we were to use that wording.
talk) 21:52, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
  • The Other animals section. Should the "traumatic insemination" be in the next paragraph, which mainly deals with non-vaginal insemination?
The section is titled other animals, yet the second paragraph starts with "In the case of other animals". Are we looking for another defining term for what is being described in the second paragraph? Or are we looking to organise the first two paragraphs differently? I thought at first, that paragraph one was dealing with animals with vaginas, while paragraph two was dealing with non-vaginal insemination, but we have information about chickens with vaginas in the second paragraph.
What is an "external vagina"?
This is actually Focus rather than prose clarity, but while talking about this section: How relevant to an article on the vagina is the non-human primates paragraph? It talks about ovarian cycle, HIV, etc, but only incidentally about the vagina, and then mostly to say that its not the same.

:Again, this is more to do with Coverage/Focus than clarity, but while on the same section (and this is relatively minor): the bit about neotrogla is interesting. My hesitation is regarding if this is strictly on topic, or are we wandering into incidental material. But having mentioned the neotrogla, perhaps a little more information is required, otherwise it's a bit of a tease, and also - because it is related, and people may wonder why one is mentioned and not the other - having mentioned the bugs, why not also mention the seahorse and ovipositors in general. My feeling is that as the interest in neotrogla appears to be more based around the "sexual reversal" and the penis like nature of the female gynosome, that perhaps vagina is not the most appropriate article for discussing it - interesting though it is. SilkTork (talk) 16:17, 18 May 2018 (UTC) [reply]

I removed "In the case of other animals." I'm not sure how best to format the section, but you can obviously give it a try. The second paragraph begins by stating "Birds, monotremes, and some reptiles have a part of the
talk) 00:34, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Technical phrasesI'll list here those phrases which strike me as too technical to be easily understood by a general reader. This is not exhaustive or definitive, simply observations that grab me while reading though. SilkTork (talk

) 10:13, 18 May 2018 (UTC) [reply]

  • The opening of the vagina lies in the urogenital triangle in the perineum.
talk) 00:34, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for my short-hand thinking! Yes, that wasn't very clear was it. I was wondering how useful such words were to an understanding of the topic when they are only used once and are technical/unfamiliar, and can't be understood from the context. Readers are forced to click though to the appropriate article for an understanding. Having clicked through, I'm still unclear as to the exact difference, from the mention in this article and the Perineum article, between the perineum and the vulva. An image search throws up the same diagrams for both. Our Perineum