Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/G-spot/1

G-spot

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: No consensus to demote. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 09:51, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article makes bold medical claims as well as being improperly sourced. It seems to have been reviewed and found a good article without taking into account medical or anatomical requirements for a good article. See WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDMOS. CFCF (talk) 07:51, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Serious sourcing problems here, in direct violation of Wikipedia's ~~policy for biomedical assertions~~ sourcing guidelines. To take just one example, using CNN to source claims in Wikipedia's voice of G-splot related "physiological differences" detected between women. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:09, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "policy for biomedical assertions." There are only guidelines. Flyer22 (talk) 09:50, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Like I stated here: CFCF has blown this matter completely out of proportion; the G-Spot's existence has never been proven and it is a highly debated topic, with the vast majority of gynecologists, doctors and researchers doubting its existence, as shown here, here, here and here, except for when acknowledging that it is likely an extension of the clitoris. In fact, most material on this topic concerns whether or not it exists. ... This topic is far more of a social topic than it is a medical or anatomy topic. Furthermore, with regard to the WP:MEDRS sourcing, note where it states the following at Wikipedia:MEDRS#Use up-to-date evidence: "These instructions are appropriate for actively researched areas with many primary sources and several reviews and may need to be relaxed in areas where little progress is being made or few reviews are being published." The "need to be relaxed" part of that text is exactly the case with the G-Spot topic. And the G-Spot article most certainly is not advocating for G-Spot amplification; it quite clearly has one paragraph stating that the procedure is sought by some women and how it is performed, and one paragraph making quite clear that the medical community is generally against the practice. Also take not that the G-Spot amplification material used to be an article, and I merged that text into the G-Spot article because "there isn't enough material on this topic, especially medical material, for the article to significantly grow beyond what it was. Not to mention, medical authorities are against the surgery." Also see Talk:G-Spot amplification.

As for there being recent material on this topic according to PubMed, including reviews, this topic is still far from requiring strict WP:MEDRS sourcing (sourcing that allows news sources, by the way, especially for social material). Again, most of the information with regard the G-Spot topic is about whether or not it exists and its impact on society. Treating this topic as a serious medical or anatomy topic is dubious.

As for "Wikipedia's voice," I don't understand what you mean on that. Flyer22 (talk) 09:13, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MEDRS applies to any biomedical information on Wikipedia, wherever it occurs. "In Wikipedia's voice" means a statement is made directly by Wikipedia ("G-spots have been found to change during orgasm") rather than in the "voice" of some other party ("According to a 2008 survey by Dr X, G-spots change during orgasm"). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:18, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know that WP:MEDRS applies to any biomedical information on Wikipedia; I never stated that it didn't. I merely pointed to an aspect of WP:MEDRS that supports the type of sourcing in this article. Another is Wikipedia:MEDRS#Popular press. As for Wikipedia's voice, I know what that is. However, "Wikipedia's voice" is generally used in Wikipedia articles. For example, Wikipedia:MEDMOS#Writing style states, "Do not hype a study by listing the names, credentials, institutions, or other 'qualifications' of their authors. The text of the article should not needlessly duplicate the names, dates, titles, and other information about the source that you list in the citation." Similarly, Template:Whom states, "Do not use this tag for material that is already supported by an inline citation. If you want to know who holds that view, all you have to do is look at the source named at the end of the sentence or paragraph. It is not necessary to inquire 'According to whom?' in that circumstance." Flyer22 (talk) 09:46, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So you think "Studies using ultrasound have also been used to identify physiological differences between women[8] and changes to the G-Spot region during sexual activity.[6]" is correctly presented and sourced well? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. But then again, I didn't add that information. If you go back into the history of how this article got promoted to WP:GA status, back during a time when WP:GA standards, even for medical articles, was lower, you will see that I had little to do with this article at that time. I have tweaked and added things to it since then. But a lot of what is in this article, including the "physiological differences" material that you object to, was already in the article. Flyer22 (talk) 10:34, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"I didn't add that information" ← Did anyone say otherwise? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 11:08, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just making things clear since I'm currently billed as the top editor of that article and such billing can be deceiving with regard to content expansion. Flyer22 (talk) 11:57, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article goes deeply into anatomy, physiology, gynaecology and other areas of medical research. It should adhere to WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDMOS for GA status. Ochiwar (talk) 09:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it should. However, most of the journal sources on this topic are WP:Primary sources. And strict aspects of WP:MEDRS do not, from what I see, generally apply to this article. Flyer22 (talk) 09:46, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder and additional comment: Wikipedia:Good article reassessment is clear that it should not be used for article cleanup. And like I stated on the G-Spot article talk page, I do indeed see this reassessment as article cleanup, since only some sources should be replaced for better ones and the G-Spot topic is not a serious medical or anatomy topic. I told CFCF that WP:MED generally does not want articles like this (articles that are not primarily or mostly medical), which is confirmed by a different editor in the discussion on the talk page. I told CFCF, that, with regard to primary sources... Let me rephrase that: It is the proportion of journal primary sources compared to the proportion of journal non-primary sources that is one issue, [which is why] "Wikipedia:MEDRS#Use up-to-date evidence" addresses [that this] can be an issue for certain topics. There are not an abundance of non-primary review articles on this topic. Go ahead and see how many systematic reviews you find on it. CFCF is treating this topic as though it should adhere to strict aspects of WP:MEDRS, when it generally should not. The most it can generally adhere to with regard WP:MEDRS sourcing are book sources such as this one (cited above). And being an anatomy editor, CFCF knows very well that we generally do not go by the standards of "reviews published in the last five years or so, preferably in the last two or three years" for anatomy articles, including for recent WP:GA anatomy articles such Stapes, mostly because information on anatomy is generally consistently the same.

I repeat that there are not a lot of medical publications on this topic that are reviews, or an abundance of systematic reviews out there on it. What we generally have to work with regard to sourcing this topic are WP:Primary sources, book sources and news sources (which is what the article already does), unless of course someone wants to apply the "reviews published in the last five years or so, preferably in the last two or three years" standard to this article. Flyer22 (talk) 11:57, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since we are talking about a controversial topic, yes the body of knowledge has changed and is constantly leaning towards different subjects. Reviews in the last 5 years on pubmed (5): [1][2][3][4][5], 36 articles in all from the last 5 years. There is no reason to use very old books, or very old articles. Other anatomical topics haven't changed to the same extent. This is not a clean-up question, the work needed to move this article back to good article is substantial. CFCF (talk) 12:51, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also this [6] CFCF (talk) 12:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not generally use very old sources. And the body of knowledge on this topic states "the G-Spot does not exist." It keeps stating that over and over again, every year or so, far more than it states "the G-Spot does exist." And when scientists are not stating that it does not exist, they are asserting that it is "an extension of the clitoris" or is somehow a result of clitoral bulb stimulation. I see that you've cited a source I have already cited above. But with regard the Puppo source you've cited, keep in mind that Puppo is given space in the G-Spot article and that you might want to become more familiar with him and his odd claims with regard to female anatomy. Not to mention that he constantly pops up in the discussion section of articles about the G-Spot and/or clitoris in order to spew his views that are in stark contrast to what mainstream scientists believe; one example is Puppo commenting in this discussion section. If we are going to be using review articles that are on Puppo's level, simply because they are review articles, then the G-Spot article will truly be in dire need of help. The primary thing that Puppo agrees with scientists on with regard to female anatomy is that the "vaginal orgasm" does not exist. Other than that, he has significant WP:Fringe views on female anatomy. But whatever the case, one cannot validly state that this unproven entity (the G-Spot) generally has support from gynecologists, doctors and researchers; it does not. There should not be any WP:Undue weight given to the "it exists" side. And I told you: Discussion of whether or not the G-Spot exists is as much, likely more so, a social (media and/or political) matter as it is a medical matter. You are acting like high-quality sourcing is needed throughout this article, as though news sources cannot be used for it at all. Well, high-quality sourcing is not needed throughout. And "high-quality sourcing" for this topic is lacking anyway, at least with regard to strict WP:MEDRS sourcing. Needing (emphasis on "needing" rather than "wanting") a handful of better sources is no valid reason whatsoever to make this article into an "immediate attention" matter. Other anatomical topics? Those other anatomical topics are known to be a part of anatomy; they are not in dispute. Flyer22 (talk) 13:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and WP:MEDMOS certainly does not apply to this article...for obvious reasons. Flyer22 (talk) 13:59, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are most definately other disputed or at least debatable anatomical articles: Cranial nerve zero Anterolateral ligament, what obvious reasons makes MEDMOS irrelevant here specifically? That there are few good sources doesn't in any way indicate that we should rely on bad sources. Can you find any comment on these Fringe views, if so they should also be brought to attention. I was merely linking relevant reviews where you said there were none of relevance. CFCF (talk) 15:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally I'm not debating whether or not the G-spot exists, but pointing out flaws in the sourcing as well as other things. CFCF (talk) 15:03, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In general, "other anatomical topics are known to be a part of anatomy; they are not in dispute." And I know of no anatomical topic that is in as much dispute as the G-Spot. As for WP:MEDMOS, exactly how do you think that the G-Spot entity, which has no known structure, except for being called bean-shaped by one or more sources and sometimes being described as a part of already existing anatomy structures, fits with Wikipedia:MEDMOS#Anatomy? That there are few good sources means that we should not be overreaching and needlessly throwing out decent primary sources. And I did not state that there are no relevant reviews on this topic. Either way, the article's talk page indicates that this matter is solely a sourcing issue. Not an issue that yet needs WP:Good article reassessment. Flyer22 (talk) 15:43, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The large scale resourcing needed makes this very much a candidate for reassessment. The way in which to make it MEDMOS compliant is to discuss structure in the way MEDMOS does etc. Whether or not the structure is debated is a non issue. CFCF (talk) 15:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is your opinion with regard to "a candidate for reassessment." And stating "The way in which to make it MEDMOS compliant is to discuss structure in the way MEDMOS does etc." makes absolutely no sense. The topic has to have a documented structure first. Why do you think there are all those qualifiers in Wikipedia:MEDMOS#Anatomy? Those qualifiers are with regard to information existing on those aspects. The existence of the G-Spot is not proven; it has no documented structure, except for "it's bean-shaped" claims and claims describing it as part of existing structures. We most certainly are not going to WP:Synthesize material to create a structure that is not proven as existing. You are big on going by anatomy books for anatomy articles. Well, no anatomy book (no valid one anyway) details the anatomy of the G-Spot, except for a few mentions that, if it exists, it may be a part of the Skene's gland and/or clitoris. Flyer22 (talk) 16:00, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And in what way is it not possible to have such a discussion under a structure heading? CFCF (talk) 16:16, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see that a Structure heading is the only listing from Wikipedia:MEDMOS#Anatomy that has the possibility of working for this topic, other than "Function," "Society and culture" and "History." But either way, in this case, it is not a good idea to suggest that there is a structure by having a Structure heading. Furthermore, the vast majority of the discussion about the G-Spot topic is the debate over whether or not the G-Spot is a distinct structure (its existence or non-existence). So, essentially, all of that material could fit under that heading; one heading with a bunch of material under it (does not sound pretty). This discussion should be had at the G-Spot talk page instead of here, regardless. Flyer22 (talk) 16:30, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]