Talk:Anal plug

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Foundations II 2023 Group B review

We have reviewed all references.
Keochui ucsf (talk) 18:44, 1 August 2023 (UTC) reviewed references #1-3[reply]
Friedchicken96 (talk) 18:45, 1 August 2023 (UTC) reviewed references #4-7[reply]
Elizcheung (talk) 18:46, 1 August 2023 (UTC) reviewed references #8-11[reply]
PharmDcooking (talk) 18:46, 1 August 2023 (UTC)reviewed references #12-14[reply]
We did not identify any predatory sources.
We consolidated all duplicate sources which are now references 1, 6, and 8, for a total of 3 duplicate sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keochui ucsf (talk • contribs) 18:48, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Foundations II 2023 Group B proposed edits

Add sketches of use of anal plug and photo of what anal plugs look like.
Add headings for better organization, correct language, and organize page.
Cite a video on how to use anal plug?
Cite guidelines that discuss use of anal plugs in fecal incontinence.
Add usage information (irritation, etc.).
Add accessibility, pricing, and challenges of anal plugs.
Use updated information from PubMed and Cochrane (meta analyses, reviews, and systematic reviews). Keochui ucsf (talk) 21:30, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review

Part 1:

Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”? Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhaoa (talk • contribs) 18:00, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I would say that the group's edits have improved the article. As a reader, I really appreciated the image that the group added, which helps the readers visualize what an anal plug looks like. This section definitely achieved the group's goal of including information about what an anal plug is, its accessibility, pricing, and challenges. Additionally, the language used was appropriate and easy to understand. They also tried to use lay language and avoided using terms like 'patients.' I also appreciated that the group analyzed the pros and cons for each kind of product on the market, which provides valuable information for readers. The group has included appropriate secondary literature references throughout the new additions to their article.Iiiiris295 (talk) 19:08, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The group edits do substantially improve the article. The article is written without bias, in a neutral tone and addition of images were helpful in understanding what an anal plug is. The article is well cited using secondary sources but I did have trouble accessing some sources (some required payment and one had an invalid link). The introduction was clear and concise. I did have one question regarding the last sentence that mentions 3 different designs of consul anal inserts. Do the 6 types of anal plugs highlighted in the article fall under these 3 different designs? Is that why those products were highlighted? Zhaoa (talk) 20:02, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

the 3 designs were just the designs in the study. the types that are bolded are just the designs we found. Keochui ucsf (talk) 21:23, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! The group did a great job improving the article. The article is easy to understand and coherent. I appreciate that they added pros and cons which make it easy for the readers to have an idea of what to expect from the anal plug. The group used relevant references which supported their article. Also, they included several examples which made it more helpful. In addition,the language used was appropriate. AnneZakh (talk) 21:52, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Part 2:

Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? (explain) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhaoa (talk • contribs) 18:00, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do believe that the article uses neutral language. The article was able to maintain a perspective that provided information about the pros and cons of anal plugs and different products without showing any sort of bias or persuasion.Iiiiris295 (talk) 19:08, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are the points included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available? (explain) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhaoa (talk • contribs) 18:04, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not all sources are freely available, specifically, reference #1,2, and 8

The doi linked to reference #13 is an invalid link (got an error message when I tried to open it).

Everything else is well cited and used secondary sources (systematic reviews or meta-analyses). Good job! Zhaoa (talk) 18:47, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style? (explain) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhaoa (talk • contribs) 18:00, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I recognized that there are a few jargon terms used in the article.

For example "intra-rectal" in the first paragraph and "anorectal" under SURGISPON anal tampon paragraph.

Overall, the article is consistent with Wikipedia's manual. AnneZakh (talk) 19:01, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do the edits reflect language that supports diversity, equity, and inclusion? (explain) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhaoa (talk • contribs) 18:00, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Use of "older people" is inclusive language.

Under Populations, change patients to people (1 time).

Equitiy is mentioned in terms of healthare coverage of anal plugs and mentions germany specifically.

Overall, people using the product are not mentioned frequently throughout, however generally inclusive language is used and differnt populations who may use the product are included using such language. Axiao99 (talk) 18:23, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[Untitled]

~~Is there in fact any significant difference between a medical anal plug and a butt plug? -- The Anome (talk) 16:06, 24 May 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

Update: apparently, yes, there is, and it seems that medical anal plugs look completely different to butt plugs: a Google search for "anal plug incontinence" suggests that anal plugs are typically single-use foam devices, mostly expanding bowl-shaped things that are removed after use with a string. in a similar way to a tampon: see http://www.coloplast.co.uk/peristeen-anal-plug-en-gb.aspx for an example. -- The Anome (talk) 19:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Foundations II

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 June 2023 and 11 August 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Keochui ucsf, Elizcheung, PharmDcooking, Friedchicken96 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Ainfante21 (talk) 17:01, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Overall reliability of article

I noticed that there was a medical expert notice on the top of the page. There are many sections I've read in this article and think it may have small NPOV or borderline advertising issues regarding the devices used for patients. JasonHockeyGuy (talk) 14:37, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]