User talk:GenkiNoEarthling/Vaginoplasty
Hi! Just a quick note to let you know that your sandbox is looking good. Keep up the good work! Also, a Wikipedian you have been interacting with via the Talk page wrote to me to let me know how well you are doing: congratulations! -DF
Evaluating the Original Vaginoplasty Article
[edit]Lead section:
+ The lead has a clear and concise introductory sentence.
– However, it does not correspond well with the various sections of the article and includes information that is not present in the main article.
– It is excessively detailed on why vaginoplasty is needed, which I think could be put into a separate section on its own.
Content:
– The article glosses over vaginoplasty for gender-affirming purposes in the lead section and relegates it under "techniques," without contextual explanation for the need and usage of gender-affirming vaginoplasty in a coherent manner, hence leaving an equity gap in representation. It appears as if the writers have been consciously avoiding in-depth discussions of transgender patients: the history section makes no mention of trans identity even though all the figures it has listed are trans.
– The content is not quite up-to-date and does not reflect recent research and technical breakthroughs in vaginoplasty.
– There is no mention of the psychological reasons in seeking such surgery as well as the psychological effect of receiving the surgery. This is particularly striking in the sub-section about elective vaginoplasty, where it fails to adequately acknowledge the oppressive role of patriarchal norms and pornography in driving women to seek such risky procedures.
– The article does not talk about the benefits of vaginoplasty, which I believe is crucial especially for gender-diverse patients, but even for candidates in general there is only mention of risks and complications but not of the procedure's positive outcomes.
Tone and Balance:
+ The article generally maintains a matter-of-fact tone.
– However, it appears biased against people who do elective vaginoplasty without recognizing the root cause of their demand––women's body dysmorphia due to unrealistic social expectations.
Sources and References:
+ The article is generally backed up by peer-reviewed research.
– The references, however, can be quite dated, and the quality of sources on transgender people could be improved from the perspective of someone who has studied gender and sexuality more extensively in an academic setting.
Organization and Writing Quality:
– It is extremely poorly organized; information does not flow well from one section to another and is not ordered according to intuition, logic, or relative importance, which can confuse the reader.
– It's also full of grammatical and expression errors, resulting in a bumpy read.
Image and Media:
+ Relevant media is included.
– Images are not laid out in a visually appealing way, squeezing the words into narrow columns that are hard to read given the density of links and medical information.
Talk Page:
The talk page is sparsely populated and has not been active since 2009. Looking at the history bar, trans identity proves to be a point of controversy multiple times, as different editors go back and forth on terminology, inclusion of new material, and source eligibility.
Overall Impression:
The article does not appear well-developed and up-to-date on reflecting the state of vaginoplasty today. More information is needed to contextualize the procedure's usage, present its outcomes, and highlight its interplay with social, biological, and psychological factors.
***very well done, Sida, but please confirm for me that you will be pursuing this article and not the Chinese medicine one you spoke of. SidaChu (talk) 18:59, 30 April 2024 (UTC)