Wikipedia:Peer review/Condom/archive1

Condom

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm considering a nomination for Good Article or Featured Article status. Suggestions for which path is more appropriate for this article are welcome.

I'm specifically looking for suggestions on section ordering, as well as overall article content - are some sections too trivial for an encyclopedia article? Are there aspects of the subject that should be covered in an encyclopedia article that are missing from or undercovered in this one? Suggestions for where the references need improvement (quality or quantity) are also something I'm looking for.

And of course any other improvements that need to be made to make this one of Wikipedia's recognized higher quality articles.

Thanks,

Lyrl^Talk _C 02:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR _t 02:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

A couple quick comments (not a full review). First, I commend the editors working on this article so seriously. I'm assuming this is a high-vandalism article so it takes a lot of patience. Kudos!

First, expand the lead as per WP:LEAD. As far as sections, I think you've done a great job: nothing seems irrelevant (though the "Other uses" section borders on it... but good sourcing overrides any complaint I might have) but maybe reconsidering the organization is a good idea. "History," for example, seems important enough to move up. Then, just a suggestion here, maybe move "Prevalence" into a subsection under it, renamed as "Prevalence today." "Etymology" might become a subsection here too, if you're so inclined. I wonder, too, if the Roman Catholic Church subsection belongs under "Role in sex education" - may there needs to be a "Controversy" or "Debates" section? You could throw the "Disposal" section under there too. Really, all of what I'm saying here is just off the top of my head; I'm assuming you'll put more thought into it and decide if it'll actually work!

I would suggest putting some consideration into the images. I actually think there are too many that don't tie in or at least seem out of place. Make sure the images are complementing the article's text, not just tossed in (the image from Buenos Aries is a good example: the article says nothing about it, so the image seems out of place). Images you don't end up using could be turned into a category on Wikimedia Commons, if there isn't one already. Also, consider moving a couple to the left so it's not so right-heavy.

Also, consider expanding why Somalia bans condoms... and add a source about condoms having negligible impact in landfills.

Anyway, great job here. Keep it up (no pun intended...)! --Midnightdreary 03:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I've expanded the lead, although the new prose may still be a little rough around the edges. How far up would you move the History section? The pill article has it as the very first section, as does the general birth control article, although I'm unsure if that's the information most readers want to see at the top of this article. I did remove two of the images that didn't seem directly related to the text, although left-handed images look funny to me in this article's mostly short section. I put "Etymology" inside "History", created a "Debate and criticism" section, and put "Prevalence" inside a new "Use" section. I also just reworded the sentence about the condoms in landfills and used the existing source (which says "the little bit of foil or plastic you have to throw away... seem like small prices to pay for the protection that condoms offer"). Condoms were banned in Somalia to comply with Sharia law, although I'm hesitant to get into that in the short prevalence section for fear of giving that item undue weight.

Thanks so much for your suggestions! Lyrl^Talk _C 00:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Review by Jeff

A useful article with plenty of good, encyclopedic images. Agree the article needs some layout/section help. In general, I'd recommend using fewer headings; for this article you could "roll up" smaller sections into a bigger one. I usually don't do more than a ===Level 3=== heading. Under "varieties" use the following, and suggest you not use any more than:
==Varieties==
===Latex===
===Polyurethane===
===Labskin===
===Experimental===

The level 4 headings have been removed from the "Varieties" section.

• Get rid of the "Overview" section, this is what the lead is supposed to be.

Done

• The "effectiveness" section layout is good. Consider putting "Etymology" under the history section.

Done

• Prevalence section should be expanded or possible combined with another section.
• Consider creating a section for "use" (might be able to think of a better title for it) where you describe using the condom; include the knot-tie disposal and "Some men and women feel..." bit under this section. Put the environmental impact stuff under the specific condom variety in the varieties section.

"Prevalence" section put inside new "Use" section, environmental impact put inside new "Debate and criticism" section.

• The "Other uses" section seems to be trivia-like; better to write a few paragraphs summarizing how different applications take advantage of the condom's ability to stretch and not break etc.

I'm going to have to think about this one some more. The other uses are really disparate, and I'm having a hard time putting them together in a coherent paragraph or two.

• The lead could use some expansion, I would expect a 2 or possibly 3 paragraph lead in an article this size. The lead should summarize all the major points of the article. (eg, should mention that condoms can be used for many purposes etc.)

Done.

• Talk about the latex condom in more detail (the lambskin section gets good treatment, but not the latex section)

The lambskin section was actually mostly unsourced, so I really shortened that section. The latex section, I think, was bigger than it looked - I moved a good part of it into the new "Debate and criticism" section, and I hope the new (shorter) latex section reads better now.

• Image:Posecondom.jpg - sure this is not copyvio? fx image page.

I searched Google images first 30 pages of hits for "condom" and "condom instruction". No idea where that image came from, although someone who knew French might have better luck. I've put a request at Talk:Condom#Image copyright issue to see if anyone else can find more information on the image.

• Why pipe sexually transmitted infections to sexually transmitted disease? Aren't they supposed to be called STD's? If not, why is the article titled the latter?

I fixed the link in the lead, that was the only one I found.

• ..."An Egyptian drawing of a condom being worn has been found to be 3,000 years old. It is unknown, however, if the Egyptian pictured wearing the device intended to use it for contraception, or for ritual purposes." Double-check out facts here. Calling this a "condom" might be misleading; if I could see what inscription actually looks like I could offer an interpretation. A better source might be a scholarly Egyptology reference rather than a planned parenthood reference.

WebMD also has that information [1], as does Encarta [2]. Would one or both of those references be better, or does this need a primary source?

I think WebMD and Encarta are both tertiary sources like wikipedia, and may have gotten their information from the same source. I'm not doubting it, but for my own curiosity and just to make sure it is reliable, it would be good to have a more authoritative source. Planned parenthood would be a good source for information on pregnancy rates or condom usage statistics, but not ancient history. Being an ancient Egypt buff myself, if I happen to come across a reference I'll be sure to add it. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 02:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Planned Parenthood does give a reference for the statement, but it's also a tertiary source:

• Parisot, Jeannette (1985). Johnny Come Lately: A Short History of the Condom. London: The Journeyman Press Ltd. ISBN 1-85172-0006.

Thanks for offering to keep this in mind! Lyrl^Talk _C 03:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• The article needs expansion, especially in cultural perceptions of condom use, and how condom use has increased over time and the extent to which they have reduced the rates of STDs.

You're right. That will be a longer-term project for me, though.

• Try turning one-sentence paragraphs into full paragraphs. Single-sentences standing alone could also be incorporated into a larger paragraph, so that the article doesn't feel stubby or listy.

I did a little bit of single-sentence incorporation. The remaining sentences, like with the other uses section, I'm going to have to think about how to integrating. Or it may be another area where expansion is needed, which may require some time to research.

• I for one think the number of images is OK, but they need to be better integrated. Once the article is expanded, the images won't feel so crowded.

For now, I did remove two of the images that were not directly related to the text.

With a little work on the section headings/layout and some work on the prose, the article will be in pretty good shape. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 03:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for so many helpful suggestions! Lyrl^Talk _C 00:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)