Wikipedia:Featured article review/Menstrual cycle/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by User:Marskell 15:00, 25 October 2008 [1].

Menstrual cycle[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

Notified: WP:MED and Lyrl (talk · contribs).

A lot of sections are unsourced therefore not meeting WP:WIAFA#1c. D.M.N. (talk) 14:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't anything on history of society. Therefore not a comprehensive overview. There is lots of fascinating stuff on how the age of menarche has changed over the ages. I say a brilliant study not long ago that looked at the the effect of a strippers cycle on the amount of tips she made. It was published in the medical post. Another spook about the effect of a womens cycle on how she dresses.
Need work on references. There is talk about IUDs and it states "Most IUDs are not designed to affect menstruation". There are two IUDs in use. A copper IUD and the Merina IUD. One can increase DUB and the other is used to treat it. That is at least the case in my county.
No references in the entire Contraception section nor in the In other mammals section. There are only 30 references when an article of top quality should have more then 100.

I wouldn't say that this is up to FA quality.

Doc James (talk) 02:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay the study on strippers is quoted but the whole article is so dry. It is not comprehensive at only 30,000 word. Needs work on section and subsections especially in the area of contraception.

Doc James (talk) 02:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doc James feels this article is not comprehensive, but I think we disagree on its scope.

The history of social attitudes toward menstruation falls under the scope of the culture and menstruation article (which is a subarticle of menstruation). Menstrual cycle is a physiology article, not an article on culture; social history is outside its scope.
The effect of nutrition and other factors on the age of menarche falls under the scope of the menarche article. Again, outside the scope of "menstrual cycle".
How female fertility effects human behavior is the topic of concealed ovulation, a subarticle of "menstrual cycle".

Hopefully this explains why I feel the article is comprehensive in its current form.

I think part of the "dry" issue is that the sections do not flow smoothly into one another, and the article did not provide wikilinks to a number of relevant related articles. I have done some work in this direction and would appreciate feedback.

I have addressed many of the lacking citations just now; I will work on cleaning up and referencing the "contraception" and "other mammals" sections as I have time.

The statement that this article needs 100 reference or that 30,000 words is insufficient to maintain FA status is a little confusing to me; are those official guidelines for FA articles? Lyrl^Talk _C 18:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No not official. Just didn't notice links to these other topics that you mentioned. Was a little lacking under contraception but once again I guess that that doesn't fall under this topic either. Doc James (talk) 03:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Suggested FA criteria concerns are comprehensiveness (1b) and referencing (1c). Marskell (talk) 09:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remove. Agree with above by D.M.N. and Doc James many issues remain, especially referencing issues. Cirt (talk) 09:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doc James seemed to be persuaded by my arguments on comprehensiveness. Are there specific areas you feel need to be expanded? As far as referencing, I plan on working on the "hormonal control" and "other mammals" sections this weekend. Are there other specific areas you see that need ref improvements? Lyrl^Talk _C 22:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, virtually every single subsection in the article could use better referencing. Willing to reassess if significant improvements are made. Cirt (talk) 00:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Today I added refs to several sections, deleted the "hormonal control" section (it was duplicating material in the "phases" section), and did some section rearrangement. Next on my to-do list is to reference the "abnormalities" section, and add some information about the thyroid to the "effects on other systems" section to help round it out. I would appreciate any feedback on how far this goes toward the needed improvements. Lyrl^Talk _C 20:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both myself and several editors from WP:MED have added further references and worked on the text. I believe this article has undergone significant improvement over the past three weeks, and now meets the current featured article criteria. Therefore, I vote to keep it as a featured article. (Still willing to work on any remaining issues that are brought to my attention, of course.) Lyrl^Talk _C 23:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As the person who nominated this for FAR, I feel referencing is no longer a problem in the article. The only concern (not my concern, someone else's) is comprehensiveness. D.M.N. (talk) 07:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Many references have been added (the current version has 64); if anything is missing a reference I suggest adding ^{[citation needed]} to make it clear rather than just saying that "100 references are needed". As for comprehensiveness, I agree that this is a summary-style article and some of the fascinating societal topics may belong better in the sub-articles. --Itub (talk) 11:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're good to go here. I tend to agree that this article should focus on the science and leave culture to subarticles. Marskell (talk) 14:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.