Jump to content

Talk:Clitoris/GA1

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

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: SilkTork (talk · contribs) 10:53, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Initial review

I'll be reading and researching over the next few days, though will make comments and observations as I go along. I tend to directly do copy-editing and minor improvements, though content and potentially significant changes will be mentioned here. I am a slow reviewer, and this is a particularly complex, sensitive and important subject, so I will be inclined to take even more care; as such, speed is not going to be a primary consideration. I see the reviewer's role as collaborative and collegiate, so I welcome discussion regarding interpretation of the criteria. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:53, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tick box

[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of 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 tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Comments

[edit]
Pass
Query
  • Nerve ends - "twice as many in the glans of the human penis" Is there a need for such comparison? We seem to be potentially moving into areas of sexual politics here, with possible one-upmanship from statements that the foreskin contains between 10,000 and 20,000. I am aware that some sources use such a comparison, but also that other sources do not, so it is an editorial decision to include it. Some wordings I have come upon are "many", "numerous", "greatly endowed" and "generous supply" of sensitive nerve endings. The precision of an approx number is welcomed as an addition to this, though the comparison and the awkward qualifying that follows is problematic in itself as well as its potential to be used as an unfortunate sound bite. If it felt that the comparison to the penis is worthwhile - perhaps present it in a neutral manner: "The glans of the clitoris, or the clitoris as a whole, is richly supplied with sensitive nerve endings - more than any other part of the human body; modern research suggests around 8,000 nerve endings (for comparison, the human penis contains around 4,000). SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Captions. I did note that the caption on one link leads to an external site, and such links are generally frowned upon; however I feel it is useful, and does not go against the spirit of the guideline. Some thought, however, might be given to notifying the reader that clicking on the link will be taking them to a site outside of Wikipedia. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The image in use above the caption link is not a still from the video. It might be expected by the reader that the image is more closely related to the link than is the case, and there is potential for some dissonance here, so I am querying this. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to place the video link in the External links section, and to place a caption directly related to the image used in its place. SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the image and link. The person who placed it there has a number of copyright concerns on his talkpage, and has left Wikipedia. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Focus. There is a lot of detail here, and while I understand the need to be precise, sometimes this appears excessive - as in An article published in the Obstetrics & Gynecology, in July 1992, states that the average width of the clitoral glans lies within the range of 2.5 to 4.5 millimetres (0.098 to 0.18 in), indicating that the average size is smaller than a pencil-top eraser.[36] The authors concluded, "The mean (+/- standard deviation) transverse diameter of the glans clitoris was 3.4 +/- 1.0 mm. The longitudinal diameter of the glans was 5.1 +/- 1.4 mm. Total clitoral length including glans and body was 16.0 +/- 4.3 mm. The mean clitoral index was 18.5 mm2. Measurements of all diameters were normally distributed." This statement could be reduced to A 1992 article in Obstetrics & Gynecology gives the average width of the clitoral glans as between 2.5 and 4.5 millimetres (0.098 to 0.18 in), with the average size as smaller than a pencil-top eraser, and the total clitoral length including glans and body as 16.0 +/- 4.3 mm.[36].
The Clitoral vs. vaginal stimulation and orgasm section is quite long, and consideration could be given to splitting this section out per WP:Summary style into a stand alone article. I'm sure there is in fact more to say on the subject than could reasonably be contained any longer in this article, and the topic does have its own notability. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All addressed below. Flyer22 (talk) 21:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fail
  • Lead. To meet GA criteria 1(b), which relates to specific manual of style guidelines, the article needs to comply with the advice in WP:LEAD. That is, in addition to being an introduction, the lead needs to be an adequate overview of the whole of the article. As a rough guide, each major section in the article should be represented with an appropriate summary in the lead. Also, the article should provide further details on all the things mentioned in the lead. And, the first few sentences should mention the most notable features of the article's subject - the essential facts that every reader should know. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarity of prose. The article is well written and presented. The language is precise, formal, authoritative, professional, and works extremely well for high functioning readers who already have some understanding of medical matters. This would make a very useful introduction to the clitoris for university students. It could, however, be tricky for even reasonably intelligent and educated readers, and does not quite match the aim of "Writing should be clear and concise. Plain English works best: avoid ambiguity, jargon, and vague or unnecessarily complex wording." Sentences such as "These corpora are separated incompletely from each other with a medial located by a fibrous pectiniform septum. Each crura is attached to the corresponding ischial ramus; they are extensions of the copora beneath the descending pubic rami." are dense in technical language. It would be helpful to look for some means of explaining and informing the general reader when presenting material. SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:02, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to review, SilkTork, and for your comment that the article is well-written and well-presented. Although I do see that you have an issue with the prose; I thought about getting a copy-editor, but also didn't see it as necessarily needed. As for the nerve endings text, it's not about politics or one-upmanship. I didn't mean that when adding it; it's that sources about clitoral anatomy are usually comparing the clitoris and penis, including how many nerve endings are in either structure as a whole or the glans. That's why I created a Clitoral and penile similarities and differences section. I thought about moving the nerve endings comparison there, but decided against it because mentioning the number of nerve endings that the clitoris has is more relevant to the section about its general structure. And it's extremely relevant information for the reader to know that the clitoris has more nerve endings than any other part of the human body. I of course didn't want to state that without specifying just how many nerve endings -- 8,000 -- or to instead mention the 8,000 nerve endings bit in the section that compares clitoral and penile differences. Also, leaving the nerve endings text as "8000, more than any other part of the human body," which I thought about doing for months, didn't seem right or complete when there are sources that state that the clitoris and penis, or clitoral glans and glans of the penis, have the same amount of nerve endings. This is why I feel that I was neutral on the matter with respect to the sources, because I mention the "more than" aspect and the "equal" aspect. That said, while I wouldn't mind your proposed wording (except for stating "The glans of the clitoris, or the clitoris as a whole, is richly supplied with sensitive nerve endings," because it's not an "or" matter in that respect), maybe it's better to have the "8,000, more than any other body part" info in the General structure section and to have the "for comparison, the human penis contains around 4,000, although some sources state that the clitoris and penis have the same number of nerve endings in the body or glans" info in the "Clitoral and penile similarities and differences" section. Sure, the 8,000 factor would be noted in two parts of the article, but our articles are allowed to mention the same thing in more than one place...as long as it's not terribly redundant. And as for the foreskin of the penis containing 10,000 and 20,000 nerve endings, that's been debated all over the penile-related articles, such as Foreskin, Circumcision, Genital modification and mutilation, etc., and in addition to not knowing how accurate that information is, I did not want to bring that drama to this article. Just look at the drama that goes on at the Circumcision article.
Regarding potentially significant changes to this article, I feel that its current layout (its headings and subheadings) is best. I went over all the layouts in my head, and this is the one that, from my knowledge of the subject, is the more superior layout. But regarding prose and technical language, I understand that some of the prose needs improvement. And we've discussed the technical language matter before. From what I can see, it's only an issue for you regarding the Embryonic development and General structure sections. But as we discussed, technical terms cannot always be avoided. That is especially the case for this article. This is partly a medical article, SilkTork, and all of our well-developed anatomical/medical articles are like this. See HIV/AIDS, which is also up for GA status, for example, or any of our GA and WP:FA anatomical and/or medical articles. You stated that technical terms would be better left to the general body. Maybe I'm being too scientific in my thinking, but I have no idea how to make the text more lay-person friendly. And I'm not sure that it's best, given how our other high-quality anatomical/medical articles are formatted. It's not really jargon; just simply the correct terms for these structures. If you or someone else can make the wording more "lay-person friendly," while still keeping the article professional-sounding and without changing the text's meaning, I don't object horribly to that. Flyer22 (talk) 21:31, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Regarding potentially significant changes to this article" - I haven't looked deeply enough to see if any significant changes (other than making it more accessible) would be warranted, but if I feel that such is the case I would be bringing the matter here for discussion rather than implementing them on the article. Other than the issue of accessibility, which as you say we've already touched on, so far I have no concerns, and am impressed at the scholarship. As regards that accessibility issue, I think that between the two of us we can work on producing something acceptable. SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:53, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as I've stated, previous interaction with you on achieving GA status was pleasant. In addition to wanting what is best for Wikipedia articles, whether or not your idea of what is best contrasts others', you take the time to listen to and weigh others' comments/arguments. I trust that we can compromise on the wording in a way that doesn't jeopardize the quality of the text. Flyer22 (talk) 00:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the article again, I'm not sure if you have a problem with the wording in the Embryonic development section. But words such as "genital tubercle," "gene—SRY—on the Y chromosome" and protein "tdf (testis determining factor)" is what I mean about things that cannot be reworded. Something like "phenotypic sex" can be, and it's specified in parentheses what is meant by that -- secondary sex characteristics -- but most of the other technical terms in the article can't be. These are terms that are used in any scholarly source about the clitoris, and there's no way that any layperson would understand what we are describing, no matter the term, no matter how we describe them, unless they understand where in the body these structures are located. They'd have to read up on the terms to try to begin to understand where the structures are. That's why we link to them (if there is a Wikipedia article on them). But even then, they likely aren't going to understand these structures' location/design, unless they have significantly studied this topic. We describe the structures with the terms that science allows. There are few, often no, alternative terms for the anatomical descriptions of the clitoris (other than the slang for its glans). Using other terms/descriptions for the clitoris is like trying to describe the human skeleton while using alternative terms. Except that it's much easier to see just where the structures of a skeleton are. But I do see one term that can be changed or clarified in the General structure section -- introitus. "Introitus" can simply be referred to as "vaginal opening," as "vaginal opening" is even used in a line before it. So I'll do that now. Flyer22 (talk) 01:25, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be guided by you on these matters, though I would be reluctant to assume too quickly that a phrase doesn't have a synonym - "genital tubercle" = "rudimentary phallus" = "primordium of the clitoris" = "early stage of the development of the clitoris". Sometimes a rephrasing can assist: "The penis in mammals develops from an outgrowth called the genital tubercle" is helpful and educational. The sentence currently is During the development of an embryo, at the time of development of the urinary and reproductive organs, the previously undifferentiated genital tubercle develops into either a clitoris or penis, along with all other major organ systems, making them homologous. A slight rephrasing in line with Britannica.com may be helpful (also bearing in mind that the focus of the article is the clitoris, rather than the development of an embryo, so making the clitoris the active element of the sentence): The clitoris develops from an outgrowth in embryos called the genital tubercle which, during development of the urinary and reproductive organs, develops into either a clitoris or penis; this shared embryonic origin makes these two organs homologous. SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:57, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I took care of your issue with the nerve endings wording. I left the "8,000, more than any other body part" info in the General structure section and moved comparison to the penis to the Clitoral and penile similarities and differences section, like I suggested above.
And, LOL, yes, I know that "genital tubercle" can be called "rudimentary phallus," as its article makes clear, or "primordium of the clitoris," but how are any of those latter terms any better at helping readers understand what we mean? And simply describing it as the "early stage of the development of the clitoris" is not telling us what that stage is/where it is happening. "Genital tubercle" tells of what it's called and its link tells us what it is. As for mentioning the development of an embryo... One of course can't talk about the development of the clitoris without talking about the development of the embryo. Not if they want a comprehensive article on this topic. After all, the section is about embryonic development. But it's not as though the section isn't significantly focused on the clitoris. I've added your proposed wording, though tweaked it a bit and kept mention of the structure initially being undifferentiated because that makes the topic even clearer and the Britannica source mentions it as well.
I'm fine with cutting the Obstetrics & Gynecology information down, and have done so. But the Clitoral vs. vaginal stimulation and orgasm section is only six paragraphs long, the same as the Existence, illustration accuracy and vernacular section, and, seeing as it's the biggest discussion/debate about the clitoris, I feel that it's length is extremely reasonable. Everything there, with the exception of Puppo's criticism of O'Connell and other researchers, is extremely relevant and needed. I have no issue with cutting the Puppo information down, especially given that it may be WP:Undue weight to devote a whole paragraph to his views in that section (as in views that contrast what most scientists are stating about the relationship between the clitoris and vagina), but it may be best that we mention him a bit to show that there is criticism of O'Connell and those who think like her with regard to clitoral anatomy. I am also open to moving the second-wave feminist movement/Anne Koedt information to the "Existence, illustration accuracy and vernacular" section, but I strongly believe that everything else in that section should stay. Besides the Sexual arousal section, it's all the past and latest research on sexual stimulation of the clitoris and clitoral orgasm and how that interacts with the vagina or if it does at all, in a summarized fashion. And I am not interested in creating an article on such a contentious topic as that, especially when we have the Orgasm article for it already. And like I discussed with you before, I'm certain that most people come to this article for information on clitoral stimulation and orgasm. I did my best to be as comprehensive as I could with including that information without going into each and every detail about it. Flyer22 (talk) 21:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I cut down the Puppo text significantly, to where there are now only five paragraphs in that section. However, that last paragraph is hefty (validly so), and I can therefore see the desire to split it back into two paragraphs. But like I stated, six paragraphs is not excessive at all, especially in this case. And I don't see anything needing to be significantly cut away from the other six-paragraph section, "Existence, illustration accuracy and vernacular," either; to significantly cut anything from there would be to cut very relevant/valuable information as well. Personally, I feel that sections should at least contain 4-6 paragraphs before being split into a subsection and obviously have never thought to have a section of such length be split into its own article (and above I've explained why that's not a good idea in this case/why I wouldn't in this case). It's not as though the sections are divided into hefty subsections, and plenty of GA and FA articles have sections that are five or six paragraphs long (though, yes, I've noticed that their sections, at most, usually stop at four paragraphs. They usually only extend that unless needed, as is the case with this article (with sections ranging from 1-6 paragraphs). Flyer22 (talk) 19:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image copyright. I continue to have problems with the image used in the Clitoral vs. vaginal stimulation and orgasm section. The video link should be moved to the external links section, and the image - despite being on Commons - is a clear copyright violation. The image is taken from the video, which has a copyright stamp, but the copyright stamp has been clipped from the image. I will raise the issue on Commons. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the image and link. The person who placed it there has a number of copyright concerns on his talkpage, and has left Wikipedia. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

[edit]
The first external link, "Time for rethink on the clitoris," is already higher in the article, as a laysummary source of "Anatomy of the clitoris" (currently ref #6). So it should be removed from the External links section, which is what I've been meaning to do...and will now do. The second source seems to meet the External links guideline.
As for "the erectile tissue of the clitoris helping to squeeze the urethra shut," we also mention the following: "The vestibular bulbs lie close to each of the crura on either side of the vaginal opening; internally, they are beneath the labia majora. When engorged with blood, they cuff the vaginal opening and cause the vulva to expand outward." So I don't see a problem with mentioning that particular O'Connell finding. But we do have to be careful about reporting some researchers' findings as definitive, since researchers are not in agreement about everything regarding the clitoris (such as to what extent the clitoral glans is composed of erectile tissue or if it's composed of erectile tissue at all, which I did include mention of in the General structure section). Flyer22 (talk) 21:56, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm only just starting on the subject, but already I am amazed at how little we know about our own bodies. We are exploring dark matter and how the universe began, but we don't know how the clitoris works. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:02, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tell me about it. I did not know half as much about the clitoris at 16 as I do now, in my late 20s. But, hey, at least I still look like I'm in my late teens, according to my family and random people anyway. Flyer22 (talk) 00:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no way this phrase is correct "the clitoris is present ... and most carnivorous female animals". Surely female insects do not, any they represent most carnivorous female animals... Mattximus (talk) 04:38, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment, I can't find the link to the source that backs that line. But I didn't think of insects representing most carnivorous female animals...because when one thinks of carnivores, they don't usually think of insects. So maybe the source means carnivorous female mammals? I'll go ahead and change it to "some." Flyer22 (talk) 05:20, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I used "other" for the lead, seeing as the spotted hyena is already mentioned there first, and "some" for the In other animals section (before any carnivorous animal is mentioned). Flyer22 (talk) 05:28, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In relation to this discussion, the two sources used in the body to support the statement "the clitoris is present in most mammiferous animals, as well as kangaroos and whales", do not say this; however this source does, and from the similar use of wording (and animal examples) is probably the one you were looking for. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This source (very old) suggests that some birds also have a clitoris. However, that is mentioned for information for potential future development - I would not expect this article to be that comprehensive for a GA. Some awareness that mammals other than humans also have a clitoris will be sufficient for "broad coverage". SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is an image related to clitoromegaly, which is in a different section from where it is mentioned. There is a link in the text which directs readers to the section where the image is placed - however, I wonder if the text is better placed in the same section as the image. Also in that section, there is a quote referring to clitoromegaly which picks up on discussion related to Congenital adrenal hyperplasia, but it has not yet been made clear that clitoromegaly may be as a result of Congenital adrenal hyperplasia. Bringing the text into that section and editing slightly may help make the connection with Congenital adrenal hyperplasia clearer. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to "the clitoris is present in most mammiferous animals" line, though it's the "most carnivorous female animals" part that Mattximus had/has a problem with, I got it from this source. It's an old source (1902), which may be why I didn't include it in the article. But in addition to its mammiferous and carnivorous mentions being in the article, I included some other parts of its text. If my wording is too close to the original text, it needs to be reworded...unless it can't be worded in any other way. Including that source should be okay if combined with your 1974 source. We typically want the most recent sources for topics dealing with research, but as the In other animals section states, research on clitoral anatomy in non-human animals is significantly rare.
I included the image of clitoromegaly in the Modification and mutilation section because that section is partly about clitoromegaly. Clitoromegaly can be any type of clitoris enlargement that is abnormal. Thus the image fits in that section, to show what clitoris enlargement can look like. Although, in some cases, the clitoris is of course bigger. But I see that you are talking about the fact that clitoromegaly is first mentioned in the Embryonic development section. It was already there before I significantly expanded the article. I left it there (redirecting readers to the Modification and mutilation section as well) because clitoromegaly also has to do with embryonic development. It seems relevant to mention it where it is. And it's already covered by the latter section, so specific mention of it isn't needed there. But I don't mind at all if you want to add mention that clitoromegaly may be a result of congenital adrenal hyperplasia.
The citations. I am aware of citation overkill, but I feel that using four references for some lines, especially contentious ones, are fine. Further, I simply don't like references "going to waste" (in a way). When at least three or four references back the same thing, I am often tempted to use those three or four references to support that text in the article (although I'm not fond of uneven numbers; my obsessive-compulsive disorder talking there). Five or six citations is overkill, in my opinion, but I included two more beside the four that were already supporting the "Research into the female sexual response cycle demonstrates that most women (70–80%) achieve orgasm only through direct clitoral stimulation" line so that people will have even more to check that line against. Too many people are still unaware that it is direct stimulation of the clitoris, and not vaginal stimulation, that is most likely to create female orgasm, which makes such a line controversial and in need of heavy-duty sourcing. Besides, most sources simply state "most women" without specifying the percentage. The usual percentage given is 70% or 70-80%, and so I wanted to include sources that specifically mention the percentage. I am willing to remove two sources from that line, but I do believe that it should be backed to at least four. Flyer22 (talk) 21:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I used the 1902 source for "the clitoris is present in most mammiferous animals" line. I would have used your 1974 source to back it (although it's not a good source for anatomy), but it's by the same author. I'm certain that the author -- Frederick Hollick -- didn't live for all these years, even being attributed as early as 1847, so somehow his work kept getting published after his death. Flyer22 (talk) 19:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry for delay. ArbCom matters have eaten up my time. I had intended to spend today on this, as I had some free time with my daughter in nursery, but the swamp of emails dragged on all day. I'm exhausted now, and will just chill out on some minor music article edits before going to bed. Hopefully I will get some time tomorrow. SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As you know, I am aware of your being busy with the Fæ ArbCom case, and, you started off saying that you are a slow reviewer, so no worries. I'm not in a rush with regard to this review. And in the meantime, it was good to find out that a great contributor from WP:MED also considers the article well-written. Although more tweaking is of course to ensue. Flyer22 (talk) 00:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On hold

[edit]

A detailed and informative article. Clearly a lot of work has been done in building this article. There are some minor quibbles and queries to be addressed, such as the image and link in the Clitoral vs. vaginal stimulation and orgasm section, and also if that section could be/should be split out per WP:Summary style; however, essentially the article meets GA criteria bar the clarity of prose aspect, and the lead (which typically needs working on, especially after changes have occurred during a review). This is now mainly a copyediting job. I'll put on hold for the standard initial seven days, but am quite happy to extend that. And I'm quite happy to help out on the task. I suspect this is best done by two people at least, and it may involve a degree of negotiation and simple trial and error in order to find a decent balance between readability and professionalism. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SilkTork, you noted the lead here and above. But, aside from maybe minor tweaking, I don't understand what issues you have with it. The prose doesn't seem bad, and it summarizes the most important and major aspects of the article. Like you, I'm also not sure about this cut you made to the hyena information. And you removed "only," clearly because it's attached to "female mammals" and an "ostrich" isn't a mammal. But shouldn't the lead mention something about how only females have a clitoris, negating those who are intersex?
As for the "Clitoral vs. vaginal stimulation and orgasm" section, the image by itself should probably stay. I'm not sure about the link. I didn't add them, and only recently clicked on that link for the first time (in June or earlier this month). But both the image and link have been there for some time. As for the text in that section, as you know, I've already stated that I've summarized that section as much as it can be summarized without losing vital information, that it's about the same length as the "Existence, illustration accuracy and vernacular" section and isn't too long compared to other GA and FA articles with five or six paragraph sections. Like I stated, splitting out any part of that section would be detrimental to it, needlessly contentious (and more work for me in having to watch over it) if made into its own article, and especially needless since there are other articles on Wikipedia that cover this information in part and since the Orgasm article exists to significantly go in-detail about it. I honestly don't know what more to state about this, except to reiterate that most people will undoubtedly be coming to this article for information on sexual stimulation and orgasm and that this aspect of the clitoris is its biggest discussion and debate in the modern era. Like I stated, "[i]t's all the past and latest research on sexual stimulation of the clitoris and clitoral orgasm and how that interacts with the vagina or if it does at all, in a summarized fashion." Seriously, in all of the literature I have researched about the clitoris over the years (including in June and July of this year when significantly expanding this article), most of what is talked about with regard to the clitoris is how important it is to female sexual stimulation and orgasm, just how the vagina measures up to it and interacts with it, and society's general lack of knowledge about all of this. But I do appreciate your not demanding a cut of anything in that section and that you now only consider this GA process to be a copyediting issue.
Yes, as you stated here, the copyediting of this article will need to be subtle and careful. And per what you stated about needing "to involve a degree of negotiation and simple trial and error in order to find a decent balance between readability and professionalism," negotiating is fine as long as the result is not a detriment to the article. While people sometimes disagree on what is a detriment or not, I do believe that my extensive research on the topic has provided me with a better eye on what is beneficial to the article. But I am hoping to not have to debate any matters during the copyediting, since copyediting is more about wording and formatting than reformatting and content disputes. Per your suggestion, I'll go ahead and contact Malleus Fatuorum. Considering the carefulness needed when copyediting this article, and that I'd need to therefore examine the edits, I prefer that it only has one copyeditor. You or I, or Nigelj, may need to correct things in the process, but I would rather only one person do the copyediting. Flyer22 (talk) 16:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also see User talk:Malleus Fatuorum#Copyediting request, where Malleus and I have been discussing the lead. Flyer22 (talk) 19:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that the copyediting phase is now complete, although there may be more copyedits on the article from Mark Arsten or Accedie from time to time. Like me, Mark Arsten didn't feel that there was much to copyedit and he very recently (on Wednesday) wished me good luck on this GA review through email. Flyer22 (talk) 22:15, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I'll make a sweep for clarity. I'll not be altering meaning or content, just readability - something that has recently been commented on, that Wikipedia is good at compared with other medical encyclopaedias. If there are any content issues I'll bring them here; at this late stage, I'm not anticipating that, but it does happen occasionally. Then I'll take a look at the lead to ensure that it does adequately summarise the main body; and finally take a closer look at the size of the Sexual stimulation section, and bring that up for discussion if it looks like a split into a standalone article would be appropriate. As always, my approach is that if there's a problem or query with my edits, I'm more than happy to talk about it. SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:43, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • For future development it appears that there are others members of Ratite (such as the emu) and Anatidae (such as swan and duck), that have a clitoris. With the anatidae, this is because the male has a penis to enable successful copulation in water. Not sure why the flightless birds would have a penis/clitoris. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:16, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, SilkTork. I did think that everything was already settled, though, and that copyediting was the last phase. But since what you'll be doing at the moment is copyediting, I suppose it's still the last phase. All I ask now is that you think further on what I've stated about the section you continue to consider a split for. Given what I've stated about its relevance and length, including that there is another section in the article just as long, I can't hide the fact that I remain confused about why you think that a stand-alone article would be appropriate. Besides the information suiting this article especially well and its presence here being better than making readers go to another article for a couple of extra paragraphs, like I stated before, there are other articles to cover the in-depth information about sexual stimulation and orgasm. And a standalone article, which would only be a stub article for a long time, would be more work for me. I'd eventually redirect it to the Orgasm article, I'm sure. And you've already stated that the section's five-paragraph length is not a GA issue...but rather your personal quibble. As an alternative, if you're that concerned about WP:Summary style for that section, despite that section already following that guideline, it could be split into two subsections. But I obviously feel that is currently unneeded, as unneeded as splitting the "Existence, illustration accuracy and vernacular" section into two subsections.
And thank you about the future development information. Flyer22 (talk) 14:46, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SilkTork, regarding this rewording, I'm not sure that it's only the spotted hyena that has the distal portion of the urethra in its clitoris. I became confused on this part of the topic when reading this old source that we talked about before and this more modern one. Both mention other non-human animals with the ability to urinate through their clitorises, which is why I'd removed "only" when referring to the spotted hyena before. Flyer22 (talk) 15:16, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some time ago, even though I added it, I later removed mention of other non-human animals having this ability from the In other animals section...because I will need to look over more sources to see what is true and what isn't on this matter. That the spotted hyena is the only female species with "a urogenital system in which the female urinates, mates and gives birth via an enlarged, erectile clitoris" is a definite fact, however. Flyer22 (talk) 15:32, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Adjusted in line with your comments. We'll look into the Sexual stimulation section later. I certainly don't intend forcing any decision, but I think it's worth having a discussion about it. I haven't looked closely at it yet, and haven't got that far with my current reading (got distracted in real life this afternoon), but I do recall on previous pass throughs feeling that the section was important and detailed enough to warrant consideration for a stand alone. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:26, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the adjustment. I'll certainly look further into that subject at a later date and see if the matter can be reliably confirmed either way. As for a stand-alone, I have considered your position on it (I always take what you state into consideration and look at it from every angle), but, for the reasons I've already given (looking at it from every angle), I can't find it in me to agree on that matter. Flyer22 (talk) 17:38, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Checking on the meaning of "Masculinization of the indifferent stage is triggered by androgens produced in the testis", I note it's a copy of this source. I'm not sure what value the sentence is adding, as the sentences before and after appear to be carrying enough information. Rather than attempt to reword it, I think we can do without it completely. SilkTork ✔Tea time 18:43, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The clitoris is classed as a primary sex characteristic, so why are "secondary sex characteristics" mentioned in the Embryonic development section? I am reading and re-reading the rest of that paragraph, and while it's generally interesting information regarding embryonic development of sexual characteristics, I'm not seeing its direct relevance to the topic at hand - the clitoris: "The phenotypic sex (secondary sex characteristics) in mammals is determined by a single sex-determining gene (SRY), which codifies for the protein tdf (testis determining factor), a transcription factor that initiates a cascade of gene expression and protein products, directing development of the bipotential gonadal anlage[a] toward testis. If no SRY gene is present, this same gonadal anlage will become an ovary." Possibly some mention of the impact of hormones and the sex-determining gene, though I don't see that it needs to go further than that. SilkTork ✔Tea time 21:25, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean, SilkTork. Are you saying that you want that whole paragraph removed? I added it because such information is mentioned in a variety of sources when explaining the initially undifferentiated tubercle's development into either a clitoris or penis. Maybe I've read too much on the subject, but that paragraph seems relevant to me. I don't see it as taking away from the article's readability by keeping it, but I do see it as unnecessarily cutting information if we remove it, given that it helps readers better understand the role of male genes/hormones during embryonic development and is mentioned in good and great sources about the clitoris. Flyer22 (talk) 21:41, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See the part of the lead that says the initially undifferentiated tubercle "develops into either a penis or a clitoris, depending on the presence or absence of the protein tdf, which is codified by a single gene on the Y chromosome"? That explains "its direct relevance to the topic at hand." But it doesn't touch on male hormones like the Embryonic development section does. That section needs to better explain how these two factors interact and result in the genital tubercle turning into a clitoris or penis. Flyer22 (talk) 22:09, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This source, which is in that section, explains the factors well. Flyer22 (talk) 22:36, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As can be seen in this edit, I removed "secondary sex characteristics" for the reason stated in that edit summary. It might also be better to move the "sexual differentiation begins and ends" paragraph back to the end of that section, instead of in the middle of it. Flyer22 (talk) 23:00, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Those two sentences are not about the development of the clitoris - they are about the development of testes/ovaries. Very close, but not quite the same thing. Useful information for an article on development of the genitals as a whole, but somewhat distracting for an article just on the clitoris. I understand what you mean when you find something interesting in a source, and it's tempting to include it. I think it's perhaps the hardest job for editors to decide not just what to put in, but also what to leave out. And that's why it's useful to have an independent editor come in to do a GA review. Sometimes we want to cling on to material because we are fond of it, rather than because it is appropriate for the article. There needs to be a line drawn, and I think that when the material has left the clitoris and is dealing with another part of the body, then the line has been crossed. I'm going to have a go at reworking that section - see what you think. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:57, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
After working on that section for a bit I'm getting a better feel for why you included so much material on the testes/ovaries, as discussion of how the clitoris is formed will include some discussion on the formation of the testes as well. I have removed some duplication, restructured the section, reduced some (but not all) of the material on general genital formation, and introduced some information regarding X and Y chromosomes as that seemed helpful to an understanding of what is happening. I looked for modern sources, as the older ones retain a belief that the default position in the embryo is female, while modern thinking is that the X chromosome produces estrogen to develop female characteristics. SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that and what I stated above is why I'd included that information in that section (however, I wouldn't really call it "so much" information, LOL; not any more than what you've added to it). A bit of material dealing with another part of the body, such as the vagina, is going to be in an article about the clitoris, but I understand what you are saying -- it's fine as long as it has relevance to the clitoris and largely stays on-topic. Like I stated, I'd considered the information to be relevant/on-topic. Your changes to that section[1][2][3] are fine, although I believe that it is better to specifically mention the SRY's relation to testis, since that information is relevant and more so shows that the information is on-topic, and I might tweak that section further at a later date. But I did change "gender" to "sex" for the reasons I'd explained to Malleus in this link. As for the belief that the default sex of the embryo is female, modern sources (and this article is mostly made of up modern sources; so you might have meant "recent," although recent sources are also in the article and many recent sources also) still state that. That is because without the Y, the embryo is usually designated as female. I state "usually" because of the topic of intersex. But initially being designated as female is why scientists state that it is more accurate to call the penis an enlarged clitoris, instead of referring to the clitoris as a tiny penis. It's also why nipples exist in males. Take a look at this diff, for example. Without that Y chromosome and the exposure to androgens, the penis would be a clitoris. Even those who have XX male syndrome still possess the SRY. All of this is why the SRY is called the sex-determining gene. Flyer22 (talk) 17:04, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I'm learning on the job. It's quite difficult as this is outside my area of knowledge, and I'm having to do a fair amount of reading. You'll have to bear with me as I come to some understanding of your positions in the article. The act of getting into the subject and editing the article, is helpful though, as I'm seeing the reason for some of what you have done, and then it's looking at what to leave and what still needs clarifying. And, of course, the more I get involved, the more I respect what you have done. SilkTork ✔Tea time 19:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I appreciate that. Flyer22 (talk) 19:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And I also appreciate your taking the time to read up on the subjects. Flyer22 (talk) 19:58, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As for the topic of images, I see that you removed this. I was going to state that I still don't understand the issue you had with it. But I see that this reason is valid enough.
And as for these quotes in a reference, I put them there because I'd originally used those quotes to support the fact that 70-80% of women achieve orgasm only through direct clitoral stimulation (as I stated before, most reliable sources state 70% or 80%...or 70-80%), and, without those quotes, it would have been more work for the reader to spot how I am using that source to support that fact (the Tracey Cox quote is at the far bottom of the source, for example). But those quotes are no longer needed for that information, since that source is no longer used to support that information in the article. And, besides that, I'd added it with more appropriate sources before removing it from that text, and have since added higher-quality sources to support that text. Flyer22 (talk) 17:04, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sex/Gender

My bad. I didn't look closely enough at the Sex article. Yes, sex seems more appropriate than gender. SilkTork ✔Tea time 19:12, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I had to revert again on the sex issue because, like I stated to Malleus, although "sex" and "gender" are generally interchangeable, "gender" is mostly a social term (as shown by the Gender article). Our Sex article is precisely about sex determination, which of course begins with reproduction (or usually with sperm, if being very technical), and "sex" is the term most sources use on this subject.
Also, going back to part of the text you added: "The X chromosome produces estrogen, driving the body down the female pathway." Maybe we should discard it or tweak it by mentioning two X chromosomes...because males (with the exception of birds, and some reptiles from what I've read) also have an X chromosome and (with the exception of Turner syndrome, where there is only one X or one working X, which comes with various difficulties), that's not enough to "driv[e] the body down the female pathway," in contrast to having a Y chromosome being enough to "drive the body down a male pathway." Flyer22 (talk) 19:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I tweaked the section mostly for the reasons stated in that edit summary, although I of course removed the accidental duplicate heading/image. Flyer22 (talk) 04:27, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Image

Not a GA issue, but the File:Clitoromegaly2.jpg image is a bit blurred and unclear. File:Большой клитор.jpg is clearer - any objections to using that instead? I know the existing image comes from a medical source, but it looks like a haemorrhoid! SilkTork ✔Tea time 19:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, it's clear enough to me and looks like a small penis to me, but I don't mind you exchanging it with the other image; the image you suggest seems to illustrate an enlarged clitoris better. And if you view the other image as resembling a hemorrhoid, others might as well. So since you have an image to replace it with, one which seemingly demonstrates what we are describing somewhat better, I don't see a problem with changing it. Flyer22 (talk) 19:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Passing comments
  • Whether the clitoris is vestigial or serves a reproductive function has also been the subject of debate. - this sounds odd in the lead and it doesn't get along the flow. It is sort of break from a topic perhaps a move or merge will be good?
  • Anatomy and structure - not sure but too much is covered under the section. I mean to say that is it possible to make independent sections? (especially from Sexual stimulation, findings and debates)
  • Clitoral vs. vaginal stimulation and orgasm "vs." looks just little odd

Here I'm not sure weather what I feel are actually issues but just gave out what I thought. Thanks! TheSpecialUser TSU 08:50, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TheSpecialUser. Thank you for your comments. The vestigiality line was added by copyeditor Malleus (mentioned above). He felt that it wasn't already covered in the lead, while I did. See this discussion (which isn't very long) and these brief exchanges about it. I also suggested merging it with the preexisting sentence, but then it wasn't needed. Again, read that discussion and those briefs comments the two of us made with regard to it. The vestigiality debate also isn't one of the primary debates among researchers, and that preexisting sentence is speaking of what the debates have primarily focused on. [Struck through this line because, although to a lesser extent in the modern era, vestigiality is one of the primary debates, which is why I thought it was covered by the original text and why I suggested Malleus's explicit line about it be merged with that preexisting sentence.] I'm trusting in Malleus having added that sentence and feeling that it flows well...because he's often regarded as the best copyeditor/article improver around. But the vestigiality line can obviously be merged with the preexisting sentence.
When I started significantly expanding the article, I tried different format changes. Ultimately, the one you see now worked best in my mind because every subsection placed under the "Anatomy and structure" section is about its anatomy and structure; that of course includes the "Sexual stimulation, findings and debates" section. It just seemed odd to me to have the subsequent sections about the human clitoris separated from the "Anatomy and structure" section...when those sections are also about how the clitoris works and its structure. And none of the copyeditors, or two editors from WP:MED I know to have observed this article, have suggested that the article's structure may need changing. But I'll reexamine if I would be satisfied with a different structure.
I'd considered the heading "Clitoral vs. vaginal stimulation and orgasm" a little odd-looking as well. But I went with it because, besides some other articles, including some WP:GAs and WP:FAs, using "vs." in their titles, using the headings "Clitoral and vaginal stimulation and orgasm" or "Clitoral and vaginal stimulation" didn't seem to work for me. Since the first one is a tad bit longer and has an extra "and," it didn't flow well to me (the same issue I had with the Clitoral and penile similarities and differences title I decided on after concluding that "differences" is better left included). And the second one wasn't accurate enough to me because it excludes "orgasm." Not to mention, the section actually is about clitoral stimulation/orgasm vs. vaginal stimulation/orgasm -- as in how they are compared and connected. But now I'm open to changing the heading to either of the latter two. The extra "and" doesn't bother me as much anymore. And "stimulation" can of course also include "orgasm"; we don't have to stress "orgasm" in the heading. Surely, (most) readers will know that they can find information on that there. Flyer22 (talk) 15:40, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I took care of your concerns with regard to the vestigiality line and the one heading, and of course removed the stray word I left behind. Flyer22 (talk) 16:45, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the heading again, having remembered all of why I'd worded it the original way before. I may also change it at a later date, but this works for now. And despite what I stated in that edit summary, as I stated in this one, the section is obviously a bit about clitoral stimulation in general, but it's mostly about its comparison and hypothesized/debated connection to the vagina. And for that, mention of its full sexual stimulation capability and how many women need direct clitoral stimulation to orgasm had to go in this section instead of the previous section (which is titled Sexual arousal). And simply titling it Clitoral and vaginal stimulation, with or without "and orgasm" in the heading, makes it seem as though the section is simply about both types of stimulation in general or how to combine both. Flyer22 (talk) 17:34, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your detailed reply. I don't see any more trouble in the prose as far as GA status is concerned. Not good up to FA level, but it is enough for a GA :) All the best! TheSpecialUser TSU 14:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I've gone through two more heading changes,[4][5] and ended up reverting to the first of those two. I've been thinking that it may be best to have "orgasm" in the heading so that readers will know from the table of contents that that's where most of the orgasm information is. But I'm not sure which title is the best for that. I've considered the following: Clitoral and vaginal stimulation and orgasm comparisons, Clitoral and vaginal stimulation/orgasm comparisons or Clitoral and vaginal stimulation/orgasmic comparisons, and Comparisons between clitoral and vaginal stimulation and orgasm (which was too long). I also considered removing the comma from "Clitoral and vaginal" so that it's "Clitoral, vaginal." But it's not like the Sexual arousal section isn't also about clitoral stimulation (I'm also debating whether or not to add the "Because the clitoris is homologous to the penis, it is the equivalent in its capacity to receive sexual stimulation." line to the Sexual arousal section). I would go with any of the first three titles, although I prefer not to include slashes in headings (the same goes for "vs."), but again, I don't want the heading to sound as though "the section is simply about both types of stimulation in general or how to combine both." And the word "or" doesn't work for titling this section. This is why the original heading was easier. But I'll likely stay away from "vs.," no matter what heading I eventually settle on. For now, I've settled on Clitoral and vaginal variabilities and comparisons, which is part of a heading I've used in the Orgasm article (I didn't want to use the exact heading from that article). Flyer22 (talk) 19:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On a side note, although I don't entirely agree with it for the reasons I've already stated, SilkTork has separated some of the subheadings that were in the Anatomy and structure section (as in the way you suggested). Flyer22 (talk) 19:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Refresh

[edit]

We're almost there. I'm just refreshing the review page to concentrate on the final two issues, and to do a final check on the criteria I've already passed. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of 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 tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:


  • I'm just pausing on the bias aspect. On reading through again I wondered if some of the "We are living in a male society" material has been over-stated? My general impression gathered throughout has been that the research conducted [in constructing this article] has been balanced and appropriate - reflecting accurately the concerns of the topic, both historically and currently, and doing so in a lucid manner in what has turned out to be a much more complex topic than first appears (and I already thought it was going to be complex!). I just wonder if views such as "Women have thus been defined sexually in terms of what pleases men" are appropriately balanced. While an intelligent reader can discern that some of the significant figures in studies of women's sexuality have been men, this appears not be as explicitly stated as the opinions that men have suppressed studies of women's sexuality. SilkTork ✔Tea time 18:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SilkTork, I don't see an overstatement on this matter. The research on male and female sexuality, especially with regard to the clitoris, has not been balanced and appropriate...and I'm not sure how you got that impression. The fact that it hasn't been balanced is supported in that section not only by sources such as Elisabeth Lloyd's "The Case Of The Female Orgasm: Bias In The Science Of Evolution", but also by the entire Existence, illustration accuracy and vernacular section. In that section, there is the following line at the beginning: "Although for more than 2,500 years there were scholars who considered the clitoris and the penis equivalent in all respects except their arrangement, the clitoris was also subject to 'discovery' and 'rediscovery' through empirical documentation by male scholars, due to 'the frequent omission or misrepresentation of the organ in historical and contemporary anatomical texts'." Sources backing it support it. But besides that, see the following source that is in the lead and is also in that section: "The Incidental Orgasm: The Presence of Clitoral Knowledge and the Absence of Orgasm for Women." The authors of it state: "Our results are discussed in light of gender inequality and a social construction of sexuality, endorsed by both men and women, that privileges men’s sexual pleasure over women’s, such that orgasm for women is pleasing, but ultimately incidental." The lead also consists of other sources that explicitly address the bias that has existed regarding the study/consideration of male sexuality/orgasm in comparison to female sexuality/orgasm. If the male and female studies/considerations were ever balanced, then Freud would not have been able to state what he did about female sexuality and orgasm and cause suffering for most women when it comes to their sex lives. It took Kinsey and others coming along to show that "vaginal orgasms" are not something that most women achieve, if any at all (considering that the vagina has relatively few nerve endings and research suggests that "vaginal orgasms" are clitoral orgasms). The Anne Koedt text you are taking issue with is simply a reflection of the debate that was going on at that time in the 1970s. It still goes on today, except that most male scholars nowadays agree that general ignorance with regard to female sexuality has been the case. Those lines, which are clearly attributed to Koedt, are, as shown in that section, essentially what Kinsey stated. It's all a part of the debate that has been going on for some time, and female sexuality and orgasm having gotten far less attention than male sexuality and orgasm is a well known fact. To try and downplay that would be a disservice to our readers. Female orgasm only gets a lot more attention than male orgasm today because of the clitoral and vaginal divide Freud created and people thinking that the female orgasm is significantly more complicated than the male orgasm. Flyer22 (talk) 19:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've added [in constructing this article] to make it clear I'm talking about this article. SilkTork ✔Tea time 19:19, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the lack of information and study of the clitoris has been explored very well in the article, and the feminist view that this has been deliberate should be mentioned. But I wonder if that view is over-stated, or given too much space, so that it wanders into polemic. I'm not arguing that it is too much, merely raising the question. We do have the evidence of female circumcision to show some aspects of suppression of sexuality - though such mutilation is not fully understood, and has to be paralleled with male circumcision and penile subincision. Much of what humans have done to themselves and to each other is not fully understood, and sex and how to do it properly has also not been fully understood through much of history. Sex and sexuality is quite complex, and much of that is detailed or at least hinted at in this article. I'm just wondering if some of the best soundbites in the article are actually the least profound and are overshadowing the richer, more complex and less fully understood story. The Alfred Kinsey material a little higher up, which is covering the same material, is saying it in a more factual and informative manner.
Anyway. I intend to have a closer look at the lead tomorrow, with the aim of getting this GAN closed! SilkTork ✔Tea time 20:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the question of focus/amount of detail is still up for consideration. I think there is room for new spin off-articles which can then deal in greater depth on some aspects of the topic, such as "Comparisons of the clitoris and vagina" and "Perceptions of the clitoris"; however, this is a debatable area, and the sections are not grossly unbalancing the article, and are probably among the aspects that are deserving of greater detail, so I think a pass is appropriate. SilkTork ✔Tea time 19:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. You feel that the article has been balanced and appropriate. However, that section is a part of the article and it has mostly been like that since this GA review began. I view it as balanced and appropriate for the reasons I've gone over in the past and recently above. Balance can't be created where there isn't any, and there's no balance on male sexuality/orgasm vs. female sexuality/orgasm. Like I mentioned before, there's not much more I can state about the focus/amount of detail in that section...other than what I stated about it in the On hold section. And the feminist view is only covered by a few lines. Other than that, it's not a feminist view. As mentioned, Kinsey, for example, stated the same thing. So I don't understand how his statement is more factual than Anne Koedt's. But I went ahead and removed the redundancy about women being defined sexually in terms of what pleases men. As for significant figures in the studies of women's sexuality having been men, that is clear in the article, especially in the Existence, illustration accuracy and vernacular section; that section doesn't only mention men suppressing women's sexuality, but also men trying to elevate it. And it's not like just any man could suppress knowledge of female sexuality; it would take male scholars, especially significant ones, to do that. Flyer22 (talk) 20:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think we might be conflating two different points here, and that's my fault for not being clearer. The focus/amount of detail comment is not related to my previous comment about bias. When I say that the question of amount of detail is still up for consideration, I meant that as part of ongoing development rather than for this GAN. Because the issue is borderline at the moment and very much challenged, it would be inappropriate to fail that aspect of GA criteria. However, I do feel that some areas within the article, such as "Comparisons of the clitoris and vagina" and "Perceptions of the clitoris", could be developed further - and, indeed, more attention could be paid to the impact of sexual politics on a popular understanding of the clitoris (and possibly on a scientific understanding - did I read that Helen O'Connell was influenced by those views?) - and this could be traced back through history. "Comparisons of the clitoris and vagina" would be able to bring together material on the clitoris, and the vagina, and sexual politics, and cultural history - a lot of things that would be inappropriate to deal with in depth for an article just on the clitoris.
As regards my concern about possible feminist bias, it was just something that struck as I read through a final time, and felt it worth airing. If I had that prickle of concern, then others might. Anyway, I'm going to have a look at the lead now to see if I can now pass this article. SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, thank you for taking the time to review this article. And now for passing it. I've read just about all there is on "comparisons of the clitoris and vagina" and "perceptions of the clitoris," and it's summarized well in this article. Yes, a lot more could be added, but a lot more would also be redundant. A lot more is something to consider for WP:FA, shall this article ever go that route. And it's something that doesn't require a different article. It can just be divided into subsections of this article, and still not be a WP:SIZE issue; what is a size issue is often subjective anyway. This is an article just for the clitoris, and most of our articles on human anatomy covers humans first/mostly and then other animals. That is magnified with this topic because there is so little research on the clitoris in other animals. Heck, as we know, research on the human clitoris is still far behind where it could have already been.
As always, I have to be honest about one change you made before listing this article as GA. I mostly don't like this alteration to the lead. In my opinion, the spotted hyena information should come right after we explain what the clitoris is and that urination "generally" does not take place through it, which should be "usually." We should explain what the clitoris is, and then go into the social topics surrounding it, just like we do in the article. Are you insisting on this change in the lead? Flyer22 (talk) 12:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not insisting on it. I think my change was more in the spirit of WP:Lead in which the more important details are given priority. It could be argued that the spotted hyena information doesn't properly belong in the lead at all. It provides additional, helpful and interesting information, but it is not central to an understanding of the issues surrounding the clitoris. I feel that because it is dealt with in the main body, that it does belong in the lead, but perhaps after the more important details. There are several quite detailed and important studies of the clitoris which do not mention the spotted hyena at all. Anyway - the GAN is now over, and it is expected that editing will continue, and that there will be some to and fro, as is the natural way of editing. I will be taking this off my watchlist, and moving on, as is my way. so you are free to alter the lead without complaint from me! SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the spotted hyena is likely the only species that can urinate through the clitoris (I say "likely" only because I'm still not sure if any other animal can do it; as mentioned before, I will need to read further into that), and that there is more information on the spotted hyena in the In other animals section than other animals, makes it worth mentioning in the lead. You also considered that mentioning a bit of detail on it in the lead is probably best, given its coverage in the In other animals section. And since we are going to mention other animals in the lead, mentioning the one with the most unique clitoris seems especially relevant. As for there being "several quite detailed and important studies of the clitoris which do not mention the spotted hyena at all," I'm not sure if you mean studies about the human clitoris or non-human clitoris. As mentioned above, there is little research on the clitoris of non-humans. One problem I had with your change is with regard to the "estimated to have more sensory nerve endings than any other part of the human body" line. Even with "human body" being there, it was no longer as clear that we are only talking about the clitoral nerve endings of the human female...since the spotted hyena information/other non-human animal information was placed after it. It makes more sense to me to get all of the specific non-human information out of the way before mentioning its development and in depth information about the human clitoris. I understand what you mean about the fact that the clitoris is the female's most sensitive erogenous zone and the primary source of female sexual pleasure being something worth mentioning early on, which is what it used to do before the lead was expanded. That could have been placed in the second paragraph with the development/design information, however, as I did with this edit. Also seen with that edit, I partially restored the first paragraph to the way you had it before...so that the spotted hyena information flows better (seems more relevant). Flyer22 (talk) 14:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Just stating that I better clarified that the size/nerve endings line is referring to humans only. We should have originally done that. Flyer22 (talk) 16:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Listed

[edit]

I know I have given Flyer22 a hard time in this GAN, but I feel the topic is very important, and it is one of our most viewed articles. I have been impressed with Flyer22's scholarship, and the way she has dealt so comprehensively with such a rich, complex and controversial subject. This is a very fine article, probably one of the best on the topic that is going to be readily available to most readers. It contains a wealth of knowledge, and ranges across biology, culture, sexual politics, and history, and tells us not just about this female organ, but also about ourselves in our reaction to and understanding of this organ. Read carefully, this is a profound article.

I feel that the lead can be developed a bit further, and it wouldn't hurt for another pair of eyes to run through the article for readability - it is important that as many people as possible are not just able to access this article, but are also able to understand it.

Well done to Flyer22 who has worked on this article for nearly five years. Great work. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Very much appreciated. You did give me a somewhat challenging time, LOL, but your reasons for that were obviously valid (most of the time anyway, LOL). I chose you as a GA reviewer for reasons I've already stated in this review -- my "previous interaction with you on achieving GA status was pleasant. In addition to wanting what is best for Wikipedia articles, whether or not your idea of what is best contrasts others', you take the time to listen to and weigh others' comments/arguments." -- and you didn't let me down. So a well done to SilkTork as well. Flyer22 (talk) 13:08, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Clitoris/GA1&oldid=1142756694"